TC 225 ___ 

.S17 A4 

a 1882 

Copy 1 

REPORT 


OP THE 



' 

APPOINTED TO 



Examine into the Matter of the Measurement of Materials 


USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 



ADDRESSED TO 

HIS EXCELLENCY GEORGE C. PERKINS, 

Governor of California. 


SIGNED BY 

WM, HAM. HALL, State Engineer; CALVIN BROWN, C. E.; FRANK SOULE, Jr. 


San Francisco, January 20, 1882. 

ARTHUR P. DAVIS, 


SACRAMENTO: 

STATE OFFICE : ; I J. D. YOUNG, SUPT. STATE PRINTING. 























REPORT 



BOARD 


OF THE 



APPOINTED TO 


Examine into the Matter of the Measurement 

USED IN TIIE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 


of Materials 


SEA-WALL AND EMBANKMENT AT SAN FRANCISCO. 


ADDRESSED TO 

HIS EXCELLENCY GEORGE C. PERKINS, 

Governor of California. 


SIGNED BY 

WM. HAM. HALL, State Engineer; CALVIN BROWN, C. E.; FRANK SOULE, Jr. 


San Francisco, January 20, 1882. 

- ■ 



SACRAMENTO: 

STATE OFFICE : : : J. D. YOUNG, SUPT. STATE PRINTING. 

1 882 . 












null 23 190/ 

D. of D. 

~*A 



i < 
c t c 






\ 





LETTER OE INSTRUCTION. 


Messrs. Wm. Ham. Hall, State Engineer , 

Frank Soule , Jr., C. E., Calvin Brown , (7. E.: 

Gentlemen: Your attention is called to a report bearing date of 
June 14, 1881, made by Mr. Lauren E. Crane, an expert accountant 
authorized by me to inquire into the affairs of the State Board of 
Harbor Commissioners, wherein it appears that the quantity of mate¬ 
rials paid for as having been placed in the sea-wall and embankment 
have greatly exceeded the amounts originally estimated as being 
necessary for the construction. You will consider this report and 
the data from which it has been made, so far as relates to the subject 
of the sea-wall, and conduct examinations as follows: 

I. An examination of the engineering records of the Harbor Com¬ 
mission, and an inquiry into the method of measurement of material 
placed in the sea-wall and embankment, to be made with the view of 
forming an opinion as to whether or not the interests of the State 
have been properly guarded in the matter of estimating quantities 
upon which payments have been made; and as to whether it is pos¬ 
sible or probable that payment has been made for more material 
than was actually used in the construction. 

II. An examination of the sea-wall and embankment, to be made 
with the view of determining whether the material in place, used in 
construction, can or cannot be measured, and, if it can, at what cost; 
and with a view of forming an opinion as to whether or not the 
amount of material recorded and paid for as used in the construction 
was actually delivered and deposited in place. 

You will at once proceed to the conduct of the examination and 
report the results thereof, together with your joint or several opin¬ 
ions on the points referred to and the whole subject-matter, as soon 
as a fair conclusion can be arrived at. * 

I have the honor to remain, your obedient servant, 

(Signed.) GEORGE C. PERKINS, 

Governor. 


Note. —Verbal instructions, subsequently received, practically limited the work of the Board 
of Engineers to the first line of investigations, seeing that an examination of the wall and 
embankment, such as would have answered an useful purpose under the second specification, 
could not be made with the fund which it was possible for the Executive to command for the 
work. 



\ 



REPORT 


His Excellency George C. Perkins, Governor of California: 

Sir: We, the undersigned, appointed as a Board to examine into 
and report to you upon the matter of the construction of the San 
Francisco sea-wall and embankment, respectfully announce that we 
have concluded our investigation, so far as we feel justified in going 
in accordance with your original letter of instruction, dated Septem¬ 
ber 1, 1881, and your reply to our communication under date of 
-, and we now submit this report as the outcome of our labors. 

It will, of course, be understood that we have by no means occu¬ 
pied all of the time since entering upon this work of inquiry in its 
prosecution. Aside from the fact that each of us has necessarily 
been, in a great degree, tied down to other duties which, by virtue of 
our positions, have demanded attention, and, of course, have inter¬ 
fered with the rapid progress of this special work, the nature of the 
work itself did not admit of our close application to it, without our¬ 
selves undertaking duties which might more cheaply have been per¬ 
formed by others. Indeed, as has been proven, our desire at first to 
make the expense as light as possible, has led us to the execution of 
work which might better have been done by an engineering clerical 
assistant. This, perhaps, was unavoidable, however, for at the outset 
we had little conception of the labor before us necessary to arrive at a 
fairground-work for a report; and looking over the mass of notes 
which we have made, we are sensible that much has been for naught, 
and that our report will represent on its face but a tithe of the work 
which has led up to it. 

The Board of Harbor Commissioners has extended to us every 
facility we have asked for in the furtherance of our work, and the 
members have been cordial in their support of our efforts. At your 
request, presented by ourselves, the Commission caused a resurvey 
of the sea-wall to be made, and at the suggestion of their Chief 
Engineer, the work was done under the immediate supervision of an 
engineer nominated by us. 

The engineering records of the Board have been fully open to our 
inspection, we believe, and members of the engineer department 
have rendered us much assistance in their examination. 

It is to be regretted that the former Chief Engineer of the work, 
under whom the sea-wall was commenced, and according to whose 
specifications it was constructed, is absent from the State, so that 
much information, which we have only arrived at by a very slow 
process, might have been imparted to us at once by him. 

Our difficulty has been, sometimes, to decipher illegible and 
incomplete records; at others, to collate data to which there was no 




6 


key nor index; oftentimes, to ascertain as between conflicting data, 
which memoranda were the most reliable; and, in short, to find 
what notes there were in existence relating to subjects for inquiry. 

This, perhaps, was unavoidable, seeing that the present Chief 
Engineer was not in charge of the work prior to March 24, 1880, and 
not familiar with its conduct. 

This condition of affairs has resulted in double work; in hesita¬ 
tion and time consumed in consultation ; and again in opening up 
what might be called blind leads for investigation. 

We have made extended search for engineering authorities and 
precedents on obscure points which have come up for discussion ; 
but always with a consumption of time and labor. 

We are careful to mention these circumstances, for it may seem 
that we have been slow in presenting our conclusions; and in justice 
to ourselves and our subject we could not leave them unnoticed. 

We cannot say that we -are satisfied with the insight we have had 
into the subject. There are a number of experiments and examina¬ 
tions which might have been made to throw light on obscure points, 
but which we could not undertake on account of expense involved. 

A description of the sea-wall, a history or condensed journal of the 
work of its construction, with much other data hereinafter to be 
referred to, will be found in appendices to this report. 

We have had before us the report of Mr. L. E. Crane, to which you 
specially called our attention, and which we refer to towards the 
close of this paper. Mr. Crane has personally been at pains to ren¬ 
der us some assistance in our work. 

We have also had before us a written and printed statement of 
Mr. Wm. Blanding, President of the Harbor Commission, addressed 
to your Excellency, under date of November 20, 1881; a printed 
open letter from Mr. Isaac W. Smith, former Chief Engineer of the 
sea-wall work, under date of June 28, 1881, addressed to the Harbor 
Commission, from New Tecoma, Washington Territory; and a 
printed report of Mr. F. A. Bishop, present Chief Engineer of the 
sea-wall work, addressed to the Board of Harbor Commissioners, 
under date of August 1, 1881, all referring to the subject in reply to 
Mr. Crane, or adverting to points raised by him. These we have con¬ 
sidered as part of the evidence before us, and we refer to them briefly 
by name herein. 

The situation was as follows: Mr. Crane, an expert accountant, 
reported to your Excellency, upon an official examination of the 
records in the Harbor Commissioners’ office, he discovered that the 
final results upon which payment had been made for material deliv¬ 
ered by the cubic yard in the construction of the sea-wall and 
embankment, generally overran the preliminary estimates, in some 
cases to a very considerable degree, and, under the circumstances, to 
him in an unaccountable manner, except upon the supposition that 
there had been wrong doing in accounting for the work. 

We received from your Excellency a letter of instruction of which 
a copy precedes this report. Upon its receipt we proceeded with the 
investigation, and under it we have acted. 

We now take up the important points in the case, leaving the nar¬ 
rative of our work to be submitted, if desired, in an appendix. 


/ 

“the cubic yard measured in the embankment.” 

As a matter of course, in this investigation the objective point has 
been a just knowledge of the quantity of material of the several 
kinds which was actually put into the work under each contract. For 
obvious reasons, it w r as necessary to have this knowledge in terms of 
the unit of space (the cubic yard) filled in the sea-wall and embank¬ 
ment. Hence the first point to determine was, how much space in the 
embankment or w r all would the material, as measured in the vehicle, 
have filled. There seems to have been a general understanding that 
the cubic yard of the contracts was the cubic yard of space in the 
vehicle of transportation filled with material as it would there rest 
under the conditions of loading. If, however, there has been an 
exact understanding on the part of those managing this work of the 
difference of condition between loose material in a car or cart and 
firmly compacted material in an immense embankment, such as they 
have built, it certainly has not been made manifest, either in the 
engineering operations of the direction and supervision of the work', 
the statements on the outcome written in answer to Mr. Crane’s 
report, or the replies made to our inquiries. 

The general proposition, that the cubic yard of stone, or of earth 
(sand), paid for in the vehicle, might not have filled, and probably 
did not fill a cubic yard of space in the wall or embankment, is 
mentioned by Mr. Blanding of the Harbor Commission, in his 
letter addressed to your Excellency and submitted to this Board. 
Mr. Blanding (writing under date of November 20, 1881), in setting 
forth the probable reasons for the excess of results over maximum 
estimates, specifies, amongst others, the “packing of the dry earth 
and sand by water (it) thus being decreased in volume in the em¬ 
bankment;” and again, the “compacting of the earth and sand in 
the embankment.” These statements are plain and to the point, but 
they are only general suppositions on the part of one of the business 
managers of the work, and not definite allowances made upon 
precedent by either of the engineers in charge. 

Mr. Smith, in his letter to the Harbor Commissioners, already 
referred to, speaking of the difference between the estimates and the 
results says: “For the existence of this difference I do not attempt 
to account, but I attribute it, in part at least, to the nature of the ma¬ 
terials .” (The italics are ours.) This expression may be taken 
as an indication that he realized the fact that the materials as meas¬ 
ured, on account of their “nature,” would not fill the same space in 
the embankment or wall as in the vehicle of transportation and 
measurement, but he makes no more definite mention of the point, 
although he dwells upon other points, such as the uncertain nature 
of the foundation of the wall, the spread of material in the slopes 
beyond the planes of the estimates, and the loss of material by wave 
and current effects. 

Mr. Bishop, in his report to the Harbor Commission, heretofore 
mentioned, in explaining why the results generally exceeded the 
estimates under the contracts for the several sections of the sea¬ 
wall work, also makes special mention of the points explicitly set 
forth in Mr. Smith’s letter, but says nothing of the probable difference 
between the space filled by material in the vehicle and by the same 
material in the wall. 

A memorandum made for guidance of bidders upon the cross sec- 


8 


tional diagrams of Section 1 of the work, considered, with certain 
reservations, as part of the specifications, says: “A cubic yard of 
stone in the quarry will probably make 1.7 cubic yards in the em¬ 
bankment.” But no mention is made, so far as we have been able 
to learn, in any record, of how much material in the vehicle of 
delivery it would take to make the cubic yard in the embankment. 

Certainly, if the Harbor Commissioners contracted for material in 
a loose state in the vehicle of delivery, it was all right that it should 
be paid for in that state; but a general understanding of the fact 
that there would be a very considerable difference between the meas¬ 
ure paid for and the measure of result in the embankment, would, 
we think, have saved much misunderstanding of the outcome. 

THE MATERIALS. 

The stone used in the construction of the wall constituting the 
outer portion of the embankment taken as a whole, came from the 
adjacent quarry on the north and east face of Telegraph Hill. 

With respect to the nature of this material, the form in which it 
was to be laid on the outer face, the required size of the masses, and 
method of deposition, the specifications for Sections 2, 3, 4, and A 
contain stipulations as quoted in a description of the work submitted 
in an appendix hereto. The specifications for Section 1 differ mater¬ 
ially in this respect from those for the others, only in the greater 
deptli (eight feet) to which the larger stone was to be deposited on 
the upper face of the wall. 

The facts as we learn by inquiry, are: 

First —The outer facing of the wall was built of stone ranging in 
size from one cubic foot to ten cubic feet in content, a large portion 
of which, as may be partially seen on the face of the wall at low tide, 
ranging from two to five cubic feet in content; and these for three 
feet in depth from the surface and above low tide level, were hand 
laid. 

Second —The material used in the body of the structure ranged in 
size from one to two cubic feet down to that of small broken stone, 
such as used for macadamizing roads or streets. 

DELIVERY OF MATERIAL. 

Stone .—This material was transported and measured in the several 
sections of the work as shown approximately by the following table: 


Section 1. Ih cars rated at 4.00 cubic yards each_1 

In cars rated at 4.25 cubic yards each_ ino , . , 

In cars rated at 4.50 cubic yards each___ j 108,365 cubic yards. 

In cars rated at 5.00 cubic yards each_J 

Section 2. In cars rated at 4.21 cubic yards each_130,739 cubic yards. 

In wagons rated at 1.76 cubic yards each_ 12,000 cubic yards. 

142,739 cubic yards. 

Section 3. In cars rated at 4.25 cubic yards each_180,312 cubic yards. 

In carts rated at 1.00 cubic yard each_ 7,600 cubic yards! 

187,912 cubic yards. 

Section 4. In carts rated at 1.00 cubic yard each_182,986 cubic yards. 

Section A. In carts rated at 1.00 cubic yard each_ 73,793 cubic yards. 













9 


Earth. The. soil and defective or soft stone from the quarry, and 
the quarry scrapings generally, and somewhat similar materials 
brought from other points at greater distances in wagons, were put 
into the work as earth in the embankment behind the stone wall. 

But the great mass of the material which was used in this portion 
of the structure was the sea sand from the dunes in the neighbor¬ 
hood of Black Point Military Reservation. This material (“earth”— 
sand, soil, soft rock, etc.) was transported and measured in the sev¬ 
eral sections of the work, as shown by the following table: 


■Section 1. In cars rated at 5.00 cubic yards each—sand_) ... ___ , . , 

In cars rated at 4.00 cubic yards each—earth_j 100 ' 298 cul)lc y arda< 

Section 2. In cars rated at 4.21 cubic yards each___131,352 cubic yards. 

In wagons rated at 1.76 cubic yards each—earth_ 26,000 cubic yards. 


157,352 cubic yards. 

Section 1. In cars rated at 4.00 cubic yards each_1 

Widening. In cars rated at 4.25 cubic yards each_t 222,175 cubic yards. 

In cars rated at 5.00 cubic yards each_ J 

In carts rated at 1.00 cubic yard each_ 10,706 cubic yards. 


332,881 cubic yards. 


Section 2. 
Widening. 


In cars rated at 4.00 cubic yards each 
In cars rated at 4.25 cubic yards each. 

In cars rated at 5.00 cubic yards each__ 

In cars rated at 5.25 cubic yards each_J 

In carts rated at 1.00 cubic yard each_ 30,992 cubic yards. 


1 136,920 cubic yards. 


Section 3. In cars rated at 4.00 cubic yards each 
In cars rated at 5.00 cubic yards each 
In carts rated at 1.00 cubic yard each 


167,912 cubic yards. 

| 120,890 cubic yards. 
-.108,375 cubic yards. 


229,265 cubic yards. 


Section 4. In cars rated at 5.00 cubic yards each___171,873 cubic yards. 

In carts rated at 1.00 cubic yard each_ 63,297 cubic yards. 


235,170 cubic yards. 


Section A. In cars rated at 5.00 cubic yards each_ 95,800 cubic yards. 

In carts rated at 1.00 cubic yard each- 27,967 cubic yards. 


123,767 cubic yards. 


THE EFFECT OF CAR AND CART MEASUREMENT. 


The vehicles of transportation were measured as loaded with a 
fairly heaped-up load, shaped into a regular form for convenience of 
measurement. A number of measurements were made, as else¬ 
where in this report spoken of more in detail, and the mean of the 
results taken as the average load in each case of the several classes of 
vehicles. It was the duty of the tally clerks and the supervisor of 
construction to see that the loads daily delivered corresponded in 
.apparent volume with those of the specimen or sample loads 
measured. 

We ask your attention first to the effect which this mode of meas¬ 
urement probably had upon the outcomes of the stone work, as 
compared with the estimates. 

2 0 


























10 


MEASUREMENT OF STONE. 

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 

Solid stone, when quarried, broken into fragments, and piled, occu¬ 
pies a space greater than that from which it came, in degree varying 
with, first, the size of the individual pieces; second, the comparative 
regularity in size of the pieces composing the mass; third, the care 
with which the piling is accomplished; and, fourth, the volume of 
the mass piled. 

The reason for the first qualification is evident, when we reflect 
that the stone in place has no void spaces, and that the larger the 
individual stones in the piled up heap, the nearer they approach the 
condition of the unquarried mass, and consequently the less void 
space in proportion to solid is embraced. . 

The reason for the second qualification is apparent, when we reflect, 
that if stones were properly graded in size, and in the right propor¬ 
tion as to quantity, the voids between the larger pieces could be 
filled by those of the next smaller size,, and so on down ad infinitum . 
Hence, other conditions being equal, in a pile of broken stones of 
uniform size there is a maximum amount of voids and a minimum 
amount of solid matter, as compared to other masses composed of 
stones of varying size. 

The reason for the third qualification is apparent when we reflect 
that, by careful piling, the angles of each stone may be made to fit 
into the spaces between others; whereas, in a pile of stones not so 
laid, this accommodation of the pieces to each other is attained in a 
much less degree. Hence, carefully piled masses of broken stone 
contain much less proportion of void space than those loosely laid. 

The reason for the fourth qualification is evident, when we reflect, 
first, that if the mass of stone is upon a plane surface and sur¬ 
rounded by similar planes (such as compose the bottom and sides 
of a cart or car, for instance,) to which planes the measurements are 
made, the open spaces between the stones and the sides and bottom 
planes—unfilled by other adjacent pieces fitting into the voids—may, 
if the mass be small, constitute a large portion of the whole bulk, 
whereas, if it be great, the proportion, according to the size of the 
stones, may be insignificant; and, second, in the small mass there is 
no adequate superincumbent load to force consolidation; whereas, 
in the large mass there is such weight. Hence, (1) the smaller the 
pile of broken stone, the greater proportionate error there is in meas¬ 
uring to fixed planes surrounding it, and (2) the more loose and open 
will be its condition, other things, of course, being equal. 

These considerations all have their application in this case, as will 
presently be seen from the following deductions: 

(a) The proportion of void space to solid matter in a cart-load of 
large stones, such as was put on the outer face of the sea-wall, to a 
thickness of from five and one half to eight and one half feet, is much 
greater in the small mass of the cart load than in the large mass of 
the wall; and, in a less degree, the same is true in the case of all 
material transported as stone, because of the first reason for the fourth 
qualification just explained. And, again, for the reason that in the 
cart it was carelessly piled, while in the embankment, at least a con- 


11 


sidembi 6 portion of it was, under the specifications, laid in by hand. 
What is true with respect to the measurement of this material in 
carts is, of course, true, only in a less degree, with respect to its meas¬ 
urements in the somewhat larger car. 

(b) The proportion of void space to solid matter in a cart, car, or 
wagon-load of ail the stone so measured and transported, is much 
greater than in the larger mass of the same material in the embank¬ 
ment, for the second reason above given under the fourth qualifica¬ 
tion. 

(c) The proportion of void space to solid matter in the loads of 
rock, as usually loaded and transported for works of this kind, is 
much greater than the resulting void space in the embankment, 
because of the reason for the second qualification above given. 

There are four reasons therefore why the rock material as meas¬ 
ured in the vehicle, would not occupy as great space in the embank¬ 
ment, as in the box of measurement. 

(1) The large stone could not be put in the same box, even if an 
attempt were made to pack them, without a greater proportion of 
void space than in the embankment, because the sides and bottoms 
of the measuring vehicles would not admit of their adjustment to fit 
well together. 

(2) The larger mass of the embankment settles more compactly 
and firmly within itself by reason of its w T eight, than the smaller 
mass of the load. 

(&) The small stones in the embankment enter the voids between 
the larger ones, and makes a more compact body; whereas in works 
of this kind—and we have no reason to regard this as an exception— 
the contractor, for convenience of handling his material, working his 
bank, and using his men and teams to advantage, invariably loads 
some carts with the larger pieces put in by mechanical power, others 
with smaller pieces put in by one or two men, and others still, with the 
smallest material thrown in by the shovelers; so that the loads of 
larger pieces have not the benefit of the smaller pieces to fill their 
voids. 

(4) The material is more carefully adjusted or piled in the wall 
than in the vehicle, for the pieces have opportunity to find their 
bearings, and a portion of the work is hand piled. 

MEASUREMENT OF STONE—THE PRESENT CASE. 

The facts are that a considerable quantity of large stone was trans¬ 
ported and measured under conditions where there must have been, 
in the carts, at least, 55 per cent, of void space below the planes to 
which the tops of the loads came; and in all material transported 
and measured in carts, as stone, the conditions were such as to war¬ 
rant the conclusion that the percentage of void space between the 
pieces of stone constituting the load and the bed, sides, and bottom, 
of the cartbed, and between the pieces themselves, must have been 
at least 50 per cent, or one half the volume of the load. 

Again, the larger stone placed in this work, as the facing of the 
wall for five to eight feet in thickness, and partly hand laid, prob¬ 
ably rests in such state with about 36 per cent, of voids; and the 
great mass of material constituting the body of the stone wall—vary¬ 
ing in size as before explained—rests with about 41 per cent, of void 


12 


space between the pieces except where filled with mud from the bot¬ 
tom, or sand from the side dumping. 

Without, at this point, adopting any ratio for correction, we call 
your attention to the facts that: 

Where material, resting in cartbeds with 55 per cent, of void spaces, 
is placed in embankment with 36 per cent, of void, the loss of effi¬ 
ciency is 29.6 per cent, of the bulk in the loads. 

Where the voids in the cart load constitute 50 per cent, of the 
volume, and in the embankment 36 per cent., the loss of efficiency is 
18.74 per cent, of the bulk in the loads. 

And where the voids in the cart load constitute 50 per cent, of the 
volume, and in the embankment 41 per cent., the loss of efficiency is 
15.2 per cent, of the bulk in the loads. 

We have ample engineering authority and precedent for the adop¬ 
tion of these figures as representing (with some corrections for cir¬ 
cumstances not yet discussed) the true state of this case, past and 
present, with which, also, the result of our own experience and 
observation is in accord; but there is a case in point whose lesson is 
specially applicable herein, and to this we now ask your attention. 

MEASUREMENT OF STONE—A CASE IN POINT. 

With the view of forming a conclusion as to the correctness of the 
measure of material delivered upon the sea-wall by the cart load, 
the Board applied to Colonel Mendell, United States Engineer in 
charge of the training wall work at Oakland, for data concerning the 
results of his operations. 

The material for this work is paid for by the ton (2240 pounds); 
hence it is weighed, and thus accurately gauged by the scow load, by 
displacement of the water—the lighters having previously been 
gauged with loads that were weighed on hay scales by the cart load. 

The results of this work for three months were furnished by Colonel 
Mendell as follows: 

Upon this work 23,644 cart loads of rock weighed 22,061.7 tons of 
2,240 pounds each; which would make 0.933 ton, or 2,090 pounds per 
cart load. 

According to definite tests made by Col. Mendell, this material 
weighs on the average 165 pounds per cubic foot, which is confirmed 
by experiments made by one of the members of this Board. At this 
rate each cart load contained on the average 12.66 cubic feet of solid 
stone. This is the result of a long extended trial, with rock of the 
same class as that put into the sea-wall. 

The hauling was done under contract by the ton, so that it was to 
the contractor’s interest to make the average load as heavy as his 
animals could manage without over fatigue or strain. The contrac¬ 
tor’s draught animals, as repeatedly remarked by this Board, are 
unusually powerful and efficient for use on this class of work, and 
the carts used were of the largest size and in good condition, with 
side boards to increase their capacity. In fact this same outfit was, 
in part at least, employed on the later contracts upon the sea-wall 
work. 

Under these circumstances we feel justified in assuming that the 
average cart load of rock delivered upon the sea-wall did not weigh 
over 2090 pounds, that it did not contain over 12.66 cubic feet of 
solid stone. 


13 


According to the measurements of the engineers and the reports of 
the supervisors of construction, the top surface of each such cart load 
came up to a plane between which and the bottom and sides of the 
cart bed thero were twenty-seven cubic feet (one cubic yard) of space. 

This being the case, the average, cart load contained 12.66 cubic 
feet of solid rock, and 14.34 cubic feet of void space between the 
pieces individually, and between them and the cart bottom and 
sides; or, 47 per cent, of solid and 53 per cent, of void. 

The former Chief Engineer of the work, who drew the specifica¬ 
tions for the construction, as we have before remarked, entered upon 
the cross sectional drawings a memorandum to the effect that one 
cubic yard of stone in place w T ould probably make 1.7 cubic yards of 
embankment; which is equivalent to saying that the embankment 
would consist of 41 per cent, of void space and 59 per cent, of 
solid stone—supposing the stone in the quarry to have been com¬ 
pact. These figures agree with general experience as recorded; they 
are about the average of the results in a number of examples which 
we have examined, and are given as a fair average by Mr. Trautwine 
in his “Engineers’ Pocket-book.” 

For example, taking them as correct, we would have an embank¬ 
ment with 59 per cent, of solid matter and 41 per cent, of void space, 
made by dumping cart loads which contained 47 per cent, of solid 
matter and 53 per cent, of void space. In this case, the cart load 
measuring apparently twenty-seven cubic feet (one cubic yard), would 
fill but 21.46 cubic feet of space in the embankment, which result 
would represent a loss of 5.54 cubic feet of bulk or 20£ per cent, of its 
volume in the cart. 

MEASUREMENT OF STONE—CONCLUSIONS. 

For reasons heretofore given, viz.: First, the great range in size of 
stone used in the body of the wall; second, the large size of stone 
used on the face of the structure; third, the fact that these were, in a 
measure, hand laid ; and fourth, the fact that small stones were used 
in filling the voids between these larger ones, we are of the opinion 
that (A) in the body of the wall, as constructed, the void space does not 
exceed 41 per cent, of the bulk, and (B) in the outside facing, as laid 
and served with a filling of finer material, the void space does not 
exceed 36 per cent, of the bulk, or (C) an average of 40 per cent, for 
the entire rock work, taking into consideration the approximate rela¬ 
tive volumes of the two classes of work. 

We base our opinion upon a close study of the circumstances and 
results of the recorded examples above referred to, as well as upon 
the circumstances of the work and character of the material employed 
on the sea-wall. 

Furthermore, we are of the opinion that much of the material (stone) 
transported in carts, rested therein with 55 per cent, of void space; 
that the larger portion of it, as measured in the cart-beds, contained 
50 per cent, of void space, and that a fair average—taking into con¬ 
sideration the relative volumes of matter, of the two classes and other 
things as well, would be about 52 per cent, of void to 48 per cent, of 
solid matter. 

And finally, that there would be a substantial difference between 
the proportion of voids existing in the cart loads and in the car loads, 
particularly in the case of the larger rocks used for the facing. 


14 


From our consideration of this point, we are of opinion that large 
stone carried in cars in loads of four to five cubic yards, has about 
50 per cent, of void in the gross bulk, and the assorted stone has 
about 47 per cent, of void space; and that a fair average for the whole 
transported and delivered in this work, taking into consideration the 
relative amounts of each class, would be about 48 per cent, of void 
and 52 per cent, of solid matter in the space measured as a load. 

RECAPITULATION. 


Condition of Material in Wall. 

Our opinion: Body of wall--- 

Outside facing-- 

Average for whole--- 

Condition of Material in Carts. 

Our opinion: Assorted material_ 

Large material_ 

Average of whole_ 

Condition of Material in Cars. 

Our opinion: Assorted material_ 

Large material--- 

Average of whole_ 


Void. 

41 per cent. 
36 per cent. 
40 per cent. 


50 per cent. 
55 per cent. 
52 per cent. 


47 per cent. 
50 per cent. 

48 per cent. 


Solid. 

59 per cent. 
64 per cent. 

60 per cent. 


50 per cent. 
45 per cent. 
48 per cent. 


53 per cent. 
50 per cent. 
52 per cent. 


Upon this basis, where the rock was transported in carts, a wall 
having on the average 40 per cent, of void space and 60 per cent, 
of solid matter, was built with measured loads having 52 per cent, of 
void space and 48 per cent, of solid matter, in which case the space 
occupied by the material in the embankment would be 20 per cent, 
less than in the vehicle where measured. 

And again, where the rock was transported in cars, a wall having 
on the average 40 per cent, of void space and 60 per cent, of solid 
matter, was built with measured loads having 48 per cent, of void 
space and 52 per cent, of solid matter; in which case the space occu¬ 
pied by the material in the embankment would be 13.33 per cent, 
less than in the vehicle where measured. 


MEASUREMENT OF EARTH. 

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 

We now come to a definite consideration of the question, as to how 
much space the cubic yard of material measured in the vehicles and 
delivered and deposited as earth would fill in the embankment. 
The general proposition from which we may derive a rule applicable 
in this case is stated by Gilmore in his work on “ Roads, Streets, and 
Pavements,” as follows: 


The growth or augmentation (in bulk) of freshly dug earth varies from 15 to 25 per cent., 
but where formed and compacted into embankments it shrinks again to less than its original 
bulk. This shrinkage is approximately as follows: 


In gravel or sand- 8 per cenfc> 

In clay--- 10 per C ent. 

In loam. --- 12 percent. 

In loose garden soil- 15 per cent . 
















15 


Vose, in his “ Manual for Railroad Engineers,” lays down the same 
general proposition as to the augmentation of earth in bulk when 
dug, and subsequent shrinkage below original bulk when placed in 
embankments and made to consolidate anew; and he puts the rate 
of this consolidation as follows: 


In gravel--- 8 per cent. 

In gravel and sand_ 9 per cent. 

In clay and clay earths_ 10 per cent. 

In loams and sandy earths_ 12 per cent. 


Other authors, also recognized as authority generally by engineers, 
have adopted about the same figures. Definite examples cited by 
some of them substantiate their conclusions, and engineers generally, 
so far as we are informed, have found them to correspond with results 
observed in their practice. For instance, Trautwine cites a case where 
wet sand filled into a box, such as a cart or car bed, was reduced, by 
ramming, one third of its bulk, or 33s per cent.; whereas wet sand 
simply shaken down as much as possible in a box and not rammed, 
is reduced only 10 per cent, of its bulk. 

MEASUREMENT OF EARTH—THE PRESENT CASE, AND CONCLUSION. 

The sand used as earth in the construction of the sea-wall embank¬ 
ment was loaded into cars with a steampower scoop. The scoopful, 
to the surface of the sand as ordinarily heaped up when fairly filled, 
measured 2t cubic yards. The scoop was filled by scraping it upward 
along the face of a sand bank, and through the fallen mass at its foot. 

Loaded in this way, and of this material, we are of the opinion 
that the mass of sand resting in the car was in a condition which 
caused it to occupy about 20 per cent, greater space than it did, before 
being disturbed, in the deposit from whence it was taken. 

From the engineer’s reports and notes, and from the statements 
made to this Board by those connected wfith the work, some of whom 
have been engaged upon it from its commencement, a number of car 
loads were measured at the dump, and according to these measure¬ 
ments, they averaged about five cubic yards per car. For cars of this 
size, all loads were made by inspection to correspond to this dimen¬ 
sion. We are informed by the engineers in charge, that the cars 
were uniformly loaded with two scoopfuls of sand, namely, on the 
average 51 cubic yards. 

Now, if this mass had settled to five cubic yards in bulk on arriv¬ 
ing at the dump, it had lost about 5 per cent, of its bulk by settle¬ 
ment on the road. Hence, we assume that the sand material deliv¬ 
ered as earth, rested in the cars at the dump with only that degree 
of compactness which would make the cubic yard as measured repre¬ 
sent 14 per cent, more volume than in the natural deposit. 

Taking the figure for shrinkage in the new embankment, given by 
the authorities, and, which we think applicable under the circum¬ 
stances, namely, 9 per cent., we then find that the cubic yard in the car 
would shrink back to its original bulk, 14 per cent., and also 9 per 
cent, of that bulk in addition, or in all 20 per cent, of the bulk in 
car, when placed in the sea-wall embankment and consolidated. 

On some of the sections of the work a considerable portion of the 
material used as earth was quarry strippings and scrapings, earth, 






16 


decomposing rock, clay, and loam soils. A portion of this was trans¬ 
ported and measured in cars, at the rate of 4 to 4.25 cubic yards 
per car (the cars smaller than those used for sand, being those 
employed at other times for rock); but the larger portion was hauled 
in wagons and carts from excavations being made by the contractor 
in grading lots or streets in the neighborhood. 

In our opinion this class of material will (1) agument 25 per cent, 
of its original bulk in the process of excavation and loading into the 
vehicles ; and (2), by shaking in transportation it will diminish so as 
to occupy in the vehicle bed about 22 per cent, greater space than in 
the cut from whence taken ; and (3), finally by consolidation in the 
embankment it will shrink into 10 per cent, less space than it occu¬ 
pied in the deposits from whence taken. 

Upon these data it will be seen that each cubic yard of this 
material delivered and measured in the vehicle of transportation, 
filled 0.74 cubic yard of space in the embankment after consolida¬ 
tion, having lost 26 per cent, of its volume as measured. 

We have made no distinction in this case as between loading in 
carts or wagons and in cars, as we did in the case of rock, for the 
reason that the condition of the material now being dealt with is 
such as to admit of its being loaded as neatly into the smaller vehicle 
as into the larger, within a percentage of error which would be inap¬ 
preciable. 

In this case it is the nature of the material, and not so much the 
effect of the small size of the measuring boxes for which we have 
sought to make proper allowance. 

We have made all of these deductions upon the rules derived from 
engineering experience generally, in constructing embankments on 
dry land, and not in the water, as is this sea-wall embankment. 

We are of the opinion that the consolidation of the bank in the 
water would be fully as great in degree, as in the case of dry built 
embankments, if, indeed it would not be greater. We do not, how¬ 
ever, take this effect into consideration, for in any event it would bo 
small in ultimate measure as compared to that under consideration, 
and we have no certain means of determining the elements for its- 
application. 

We conclude that the sand delivered in vehicles, as earth, would 
fill in the consolidated embankment 80 per cent, of the space occu¬ 
pied by it in the vehicle as measured, supposing it to have com¬ 
pacted 5^ per cent. from, its condition when loaded ; and the remain¬ 
ing material (as before described), would fill 74 per cent, of the corre¬ 
sponding* space in the vehicle. 


THE RESULT OF THE JOB-WORK CONTRACTS. 

We have now set before you, as we believe, for the several classes- 
of material used and the varying circumstances of their transporta¬ 
tion, the ratios which existed between the percentage of void space 
within the mass of each as held in the vehicle of measurement, and 
as consolidated in the embankment or wall. 

Before proceeding to apply these figures, in the correction of the 
reported results or final estimates, under each contract and in each 




PLAN or THE 

SEA WALL 

AEMBANKMENT 

SO FAR AS CONSTRUCTEk ) 


SCALE■ 200 FT. TO 1 INCH. 


V 

















































































































































I 












• « 














It 











% 









































EARTH EMBANKMENT 



IDEAL TRANSVERSE SECTION OF SEA WALL AND EMBANKMENT 

SCflLE 20 FT. TO flN INCH. 


IMUIL. 

CHANGES MADE ON SEC. 3. AI(E SHOWN THUS: 


II 


SEC. 4. " 
















































































17 


section of tne work, we desire to draw your attention to another point. 
1 wo large jobs of the sea-wall work were executed for lump sums. 
These were the Kearny Street fill and connecting embankment, and 
feection 1 to 91 feet in width of the sea-wall proper. These were 
the first two jobs let, and the system of contracting was thereafter 
changed to the cubic yard rating for stone and earth or sand. 

Under the circumstances of the first two contracts, it was not nec¬ 
essary for purposes of the payment of the contractor, that the amount 
of material used should be gauged, for he was to receive only a pre¬ 
fixed sum for the job complete in each instance. 

The following stipulation, however, appears in the specifications 
for Section 1: “The contractor shall afford the Chief Engineer of 
the Board every facility for determining the quantity of material 
used; and, to this end, the cars, carts, or other vehicles, shall be, as 
far as possible, of uniform dimensions and filled with uniform 
loads.” 

As instructed by the engineer, the supervisor of construction, who 
was charged with the duty of examining the quality of the material 
delivered by the contractor, and also with the direction of its deposi¬ 
tion in the work, kept accounts of the loads of the several classes, 
and of the volume in cubic yards of the average loads of each class, 
under these two job-work contracts. 

Those accounts are to be found in two memorandum books amongst 
the engineering records of the work. We have made up from them 
statements of material delivered under each contract. 

To these works, and the statements concerning their outcomes, we 
now T ask your attention. 

THE KEARNY-STREET FILL AND CONNECTING EMBANKMENT. 

The “Kearny-street fill and connecting embankment” work was 
undertaken for the purpose of providing a causeway along which to 
transport material for the construction of the “sea-wall and embank¬ 
ment,” from land at the junction of Kearny and Bay Streets to the 
site of the proposed main work, at about the dividing line between 
Sections 1 and 2 thereof. It was doubtless intended to serve also as a 
dam to prevent the flow of the tidal currents, back and forth, through 
the water space that intervened between the shore and the embank¬ 
ment in course of construction, and thus protect the lighter bank 
materials from being altogether carried away. 

A description of this embankment and fill will be found appended 
with that of the sea-wall and embankment. Its calculated contents, 
including earth and stone, through the mud and sand to the hard 
bottom, and excluding the western slope of the fill, which was paid 
for by the owner of property on that side of the street, is 41,299 cubic 
yards. 

According to the check or tally book of the supervisor of construc¬ 
tion, 58,154 cubic yards of material, as measured in the vehicles of 
delivery, cars and carts, were put into the work. Of this amount, 
about 4,000 cubic yards are proportionally due to the slope on the 
western side of the fill, leaving 54,154 cubic yards used, as against 
41,299 cubic yards estimated to “hard bottom,” an excess of 12,855 
cubic yards, or 31 per cent, more than calculated upon as enough to 
found the work on the plane of mud below which the testing rods 
had not penetrated—the plane called that of “hard bottom.” There 
3 e 


18 


was no estimate for bids on this work. The contractor agreed for a 
specified sum to complete the job. 

Upon the drawings representing sections of the proposed bank, a 
memorandum is found to the following effect, viz., that: 

1. “Supposing the earth and stone facing to earth embankment to 
sink to one third depth of the mud , and the rock embankment to 
sink to sand” the quantities required would be, of rock, 8,290 cubic 
yards, and of earth, 18,397 cubic yards—a total of 26,687 cubic yards. 

2. “Supposing both earth and rock embankment to sink to sand” 
the quantities required would be, of rock, 8,280 cubic yards, and of 
earth, 27,142 cubic yards. 

The word “sand” was here used as representing the upper plane 
of the material in the bottom, into which the testing rod did not 
sink of its own weight, and hence in this respect is synonymous with 
“ hard mud,” an expression used in connection with other portions 
of the work. The material is really a firm sandy mud, and probably 
presents about the same resistance to the settling of the embank¬ 
ment as “hard mud” did elsewhere. 

There was no estimate originally made of the contents of this work, 
supposing it to settle to “ hard bottom;” but that heretofore given 
has been made under our direction for the purpose of obtaining a 
result to compare with results in other portions of the work. ^ 

SECTION ONE—FIRST CONTRACT. 

From the end of the “connecting embankment,” Section 1 of the 
main work extended westerly, its length being one thousand feet. 
Concerning the amount of material used in this construction, we 
find three sources of information, namely: the tally-books, the 
returns of the supervisor of construction submitted to the Chief 
Engineer, and the monthly reports or statements made by the Chief 
Engineer to the Board of Harbor Commissioners; upon which latter, 
partial payments were made to the contractor. 

We have compiled these three sets of results, and now bring 
them together in two tabular exhibits—one for stone, and the other 
for earth. To the first of these we ask your attention. 

COMPARISON OF RESULTS AND RETURNS. 

Section I. —Stone. 


Months. 

Engineer’s State¬ 
ments. 

Supervisors’ Returns. 

Supervisors’ Tally 
Account. 

Monthly 

Work. 

Total to 
Date. 

Monthly 

Work. 

Total to 
Date. 

Monthly 

Work. 

Total to 
Date. 

November, 1878 __ 

December. _ - __ 

January, 1879_ 

February__ _ 

March.__ _ . _ 

April___ 

May__ .... _ 

June_ _ 

July__ 

Totals__ 

Cub. yds. 

600 

330 

24,690 

40,545 

15,000 

2,056 

128 

4,651 

2,327 

Cub. yds. 

930 

25,620 

66.165 

81.165 
83,221 
83,349 
88,000 
90,327 

Cub. yds. 

J 1,530 

24,090 

40,575 

27,140 

3,056 

128 

7,934 

3,912 

Cub. yds. 

25,620 

66,195 

93,335 

96,391 

96,519 

104,453 

108,365 

Cub. yds. 

1,530 

24,085 

40,580 

27,140 

4,795 

128 

7,934 

3,912 

Cub. yds. 

25,615 

66,195 

93,335 

98.130 

98,258 

106,192 

110,104 

90,327 


108,365 


110,104 




































19 


In the above table the first, third, and fifth columns of figures show 
the amounts ot stone in cubic yards delivered by the contractor 
during each month, respectively, according to the “Engineer’s State¬ 
ments” to the Board, the “Supervisor’s Returns” to the Engineer, 
a i ' Supervisor’s Tally Account,” as per memorandum books in 

the office; and the second, fourth, and sixth columns of figures show 
the total quantities of stone delivered from the commencement of the 
work to the ends of the several months, according to the authorities, 
severally, as above enumerated. 

A comparison of the figures representing the deductions from the 
daily tally account, and those from the monthly returns of the super¬ 
visor of construction, in the fifth and third columns, shows a nearly 
perfect accord in the matter of results for each month from the com¬ 
mencement to the end of the work, except for the month of April, 
1879, when 1,739 cubic yards more were tallied by the car load than 
were entered in the returns. Thus, the total number of cubic yards 
of stone checked off as measured by the car or cart load for the job, 
was 110,104, and the total number reported to the Chief Engineer 
was 108,365 cubic yards. 

A comparison of the figures derived from the engineer’s statements 
to the Harbor Commissioners with those from the returns made to 
him by the supervisor, shows that, for the first four months of the 
work, to the end of February, 1879, the total amounts correspond 
within thirty cubic yards—the supervisor returned a total to date of 
66,195 cubic yards, and the engineer reported 66,165 cubic yards as 
having been done. Thenceforward, to the close of the contract, it 
will be seen that the engineer, each month, with the exception of 
May, reported a considerably less amount of work as having been 
done, than was entered upon the returns made to him. So that, at 
the close of the contract, his sum total was 90,327 cubic yards, as 
against 108,365, returned by the supervisor of construction. 

The explanation of this difference is readily made. The contract 
was for a lump sum—$96,000—and the contractor was to’receive 
monthly partial payments on the proportion of his full contract 
work executed during the past month. In order that there might be 
a basis for payment without danger of greatly overrunning, it was 
necessary to assume some total quantity of each class of work, and 
to pay for partial quantities reported from time to time at some rate 
that would allow a fair proportion of the stipulated price for the 
whole. 

The engineer, in February, 1879, when 25,620 cubic yards of stone 
had been deposited, as per returns made to him, fixed upon the 
number 90,327 as that of the cubic yards which would probably be 
required, this being nearly the amount of a mean between the esti¬ 
mated contents of the wall to the “hard mud” plane, and that to the 
“ hard bottom ” plane. He assumed that the wall material would 
sink to that depth, and that he might safely pay on that basis. It 
appears, however, the experience of that and the next month showed 
him that he had fixed upon too low a figure as a basis upon which 
to make his partial statements; so we find him in March reporting 
only 15,000 cubic yards delivered, when 27,140 were reported to him 
by the supervisor; and so on to the end of the work, as shown by 
the table, when he made his returns in the aggregate correspond with 
his estimated or assumed amount. 


20 


We now ask your attention to the second tabular exhibit spoken of: 

COMPARISON OF RESULTS AND RETURNS. 


Section I. —Earth. 


Months. • 

Engineer’s State¬ 
ments. 

Supervisor’s Returns. 

Supervisor’s Tally 
Account. 

Monthly- 

Work. 

Total to 
Date. 

Monthly 

Work. 

Total to 
Date. 

Monthly 

Work. 

Total to 
Date. 

1879. 

January _ 

Cub. yds. 
6,380 
12,230 
20,390 
21,104 
17,896 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 
6,380 
12,310 
26,460 
21,1D4 
25,540 
924 
7,580 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 
6,380 
12,310 
26,450 
30,215 
25,540 
924 
7,580 

Cub. yds. 

February _ 

March_ 

April__ 

May_ 

June_ 

18,610 

39,000 

60,104 

78,000 

78,000 

79,000 

18,690 

45,150 

66,254 

91,794 

92,718 

100,298 

18,69a 

45,140 

75,355 

100,895 

101,819 

109,399 

July- 

Totals_ 

1,000 

79,000 


100,298 


109,399 







The figures in this table relate to earth work in Section 1 (as those 
in the table preceding did to the stone work), and, with this excep¬ 
tion, the explanation following the first table applies to that now 
presented. 

It will be seen that the monthly quantities made up from the tally 
account of car or cart loads, according to the prescribed rating, as 
shown in the fifth column, corresponds in every instance with those 
in the third column, which were returned to the engineer by the 
supervisor, except those for the month of April, when the tally 
account exceeds the return by 9,111 cubic yards. 

Passing again to a comparison of the supervisor’s returns to the 
Engineer, with those of the engineer to the Board, a condition of 
things similar to that found to have existed in the case of the rock, 
is here detected. After the second month of the earth work, namely* 
in March, 1879, the engineer evidently found that his total estimate 
made as a basis for partial payments was too low, and he thence¬ 
forward reported to the Board monthly, except in the case of April, 
a less number of cubic yards than were entered upon the supervisor’s 
returns to him. At the end of the work he made his total quantity 
reported correspond with his estimated amount of 79,000 cubic yards* 
which was, as in the case of the rock wall, about a mean between the 
estimates for the embankments to the “firm mud” and the “hard 
bottom ” planes in the substrata, while at the same time his repre¬ 
sentative on the ground had reported to him that 100,298 cubic yards 
had been placed in the embankment. Of course, the explanation 
given for the engineer’s reason for thus making his final return and 
original estimate come out together, is the same in this case, as in 
that of the stone, as already given. 


The following formulated exhibit enables a provisional comparison 
of results with estimates to be readily made. It being remembered 
that corrections are yet to be applied to the outcome for shrinkage in 
the embankment. 





























21 


COMPARISON OP RESULTS AND ESTIMATES. 
Section I. 

(Results yet to be corrected for comparison.) 



Stone. 

Earth. 

Estimates to “hard mud” plane_ _ 

84,252 

109,674 

90,327 

90,327 

108,365 

73,037 

87,811 

79,000 

79,000 

100,298 

Estimates to “hard bottom” plane_ 

Engineer’s basis for partial payments.. _____ 

Engineer’s sum total reported_ . 

Actual results (supervisor’s returns)_ 



We accept the figures given in the supervisor’s returns, over his 
signature, as being the actual results as to the volumes of materials 
delivered and measured in the vehicles, for the tally account in the 
memorandum book, although possibly correct, has been kept in a 
most unbusinesslike manner, is difficult to understand, and is not 
signed, so that we feel bound to take the written official statements, 
or returns, of the supervisor of construction, who kept the tally, in 
preference to the memorandum account thereof itself in the condition 
in which we find it. 

APPLICATION OF THE JOB-WORK CONTRACT RESULTS. 

These results which, so far as we know, have not been brought to 
light before, have an important bearing in the consideration of the 
whole question we have before us. 

It will be readily understood that a contractor, working by the job, 
will endeavor to secure the greatest result possible from the labor of 
his teams and other motive power—his vehicles will be well loaded. 

In the case of the first two jobs—the Kearny street causeway and 
•Section 1 of the wall and embankment to ninety-one feet wide—a 
tally account was kept of the loads of material delivered, possibly 
for the purpose of establishing approximate results from month 
to month upon which to pay some portion of the gross sums 
agreed upon. There had to be a supervisor of construction on the 
work to reject or accept the material according to its quality, and to 
direct its dumpage, and he kept the account. It is to be presumed 
that the engineer also had in view the acquirement of some more 
definite knowledge of the amount of material really required for 
this novel work than could be obtained from simply sounding with 
a lead and testing the bottom material with a rod or pipe. 

Under all subsequent contracts, the tally accounts of loads deliv¬ 
ered were kept, not only as a basis for partial payments, but as the 
record of a measure for final settlement; these works being paid for 
by the cubic yard. 

If, therefore, we have arrived at a knowledge of the real outcome 
under these two first contracts, undertaken by the job, we have the 
foundation for a fair judgment on the outcome of subsequent work, 
undertaken by the cubic yard estimated in the vehicle of delivery 
knowing, of course, the varying conditions in each case. 












22 


CORRECTIONS OF THE RESULTS 

ON ACCOUNT OF CONSOLIDATION OF MATERIAL IN THE WORK. 

Having acquired a knowledge of the real outcome, by car or cart 
measurement, on the job-work contract sections, we have the results 
under all the contracts upon the same basis, and may now apply the 
corrections heretofore determined upon as proper for shrinkage or 
consolidation of the materials in the wall and embankment, below 
the standard of measurement in the vehicles. 

For reasons which we shall hereafter explain, we do not claim per¬ 
fect accuracy for the figures representing the amounts carried in the 
several classes of vehicles, nor for those representing the aggregate 
amounts of the several classes of material in the following tables, 
but they are derived from a tabulation of the tally returns and infor¬ 
mation as to source of supply of materials, and are quite close enough 
to the truth for the purposes of this report. 

With what has been already said in explanation of the degrees of 
consolidation of materials in the embankments over their condi¬ 
tions in the vehicles of delivery, the following exhibits will be read¬ 
ily comprehended. 

Table showing the Space in the Stone Wall which the Material (Stone) Delivered and Measured in 
Vehicles probably filled. Allowances made for Character of Material and Class of Vehicle. 



Quantities, 

Vehicle Measurements. 

Correction for Consolidation, 
Per cent, and amount. 

Kesults in the 
Stone Wall. 



Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Section 1_ _ 

Cars.. 

_108,365 

13.33 per ct._ 

14,445.1 

93,919.£ 

Section 2--- - __ 

Cars 

_130,739 

13.33 per ct._ 

17,427.5 

113,311.5 


C. W.. 

_ 12,000 

19.00 per ct._ 

2,280 

9,720.0 

123,031.5 

Section 3___ . _ _ 

Cars . 

_180,312 

13.33 per ct._ 

24,035.6 

156,276.4 


Carts. 


20.00 per ct._ 

1,520 

6,080.0 

162,356.4 

Section 4__ __ 

Carts 

_ 182,986 

20.00 per ct._ 

36,597 

146,389.0 

Section A. _ . _ 

Carts. 

- 73,793 

20.00 per ct._ 

14,758.6 

59,034.0 






















23 


Table showing the Space in the Earth Embankment which the Material {Earth) Delivered and 
Measured in Vehicles probably filled. Allowances made for Character of Materials and Class 
of Vehicle. 



Quantities, Vehicle 
Measurement. 

Quantities, 
Material Classified. 

Correction for 
Shrinkage, 

Per cent, and Amount. 

Kesults in 
the 

Embankm’t. 


Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Section 1 _ 


Sand 100 298 

—20 per cent. 20,060 

80,238 


W. C_ 

Earth 

—26 per cent. __ 

Section 2 ____ 

Cars_131,352 

Sand __ 131,352 

—20 per cent. 26,270 

105,082 


W. C.__ 26,000 

Earth__ 26,000 

—26 per cent. 6,760 

19,240 


157,352 

157,352 


124,322 

Section 1, W._ _ 

Cars_ 222,175 

Sand 221,091 

—20 per cent. 44,218 

176,873 


W. C.__ 10,706 

Earth.. 11,790 

—26 per cent. 3,065 

8,725 


232,881 

232,881 


185,598 

Section 2, W._ 

Cars_ 136,920 

Sand - 134,920 

—20 per cent. 26,984 

107,936 


W. C— 30,992 

Earth.. 32,992 

—26 per cent. 8,578 

24,414 


167,912 

167,912 


132,350 

Section 3_ _ 

Cars_ 

Sand __ 120,890 

—20 per cent. 24,178 

96,712 


W. C_ 

Earth— 108,375 

—26 per cent. 28,177 

80,198 



229,265 


176,910 

Section 4__ --- 

Cars_171.873 

Sand -171,873 

—20 per cent. 34,375 

137,498 


W. C._. 63,297 

Earth— 63,297 

—26 per cent. 16,457 

46,840 


235,170 

235,170 


184,338 

Section A. ... - 

Cars___ 94,800 

Sand __ 95,800 

—20 per cent. 19,160 

76,640 


W. C— 27,967 

Earth.. 27,967 

—26 per cent. 7,271 

20,696 


123,767 

123,767 


97,336 

Kearny St. Embankment- 


Earth and 





stone.. 54,154 

—20 per cent. 10,831 

43,323 


A COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS 

IN THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE WORK. 

Upon the basis of the foregoing quantitative results, as per cart 
and car measurement, reduced to effective amounts in the wall and 
embankment, in the light of a study of the nature of the foundation 
of the wall in its several sections (the data for which we append in 
brief), together with a consideration of the circumstances of con¬ 
struction, the environments of the several parts of the work, the 
influences to which they have been exposed, the material employed, 
and the results of the resurvey of the structure, we are enabled to 
make a useful comparison of the ratios between the estimates and 
the outcomes in the several sections, to still further account for 
apparently anomalous results, and to arrive at an understanding of 
the whole subject, such as to enable us to form a just opinion of the 
results. 

































24 


With respect to a comparison of the tally accounts, so far as they 
can be understood, the Supervisor’s returns and the Engineer’s 
monthly statements, under each contract by the cubic yard, it is 
sufficient here to remark that, so far as we have examined them, they 
agree without material variation. It has therefore been unnecessary 
to bring a synopsis of the former into the following tabulations, which 
have been made with the view of comparing results in the different 
sections, and not the records of each section. 

Three tables have been prepared for the purpose of these compari¬ 
sons: the first exhibits the quantitative data relative to the stone 
work under all the contracts on the sea-wall proper; the second 
shows similar data with respect to the earth in the embankment; 
and the third contains the data of the second combined for the earth¬ 
work in Sections 1 and 2, with that, respectively, for the widening of 
those sections, so as to place the results on all the sections upon an 
equal footing for comparison in the light of the physical facts in 
each case. To the second table is added also the data relative to the 
Kearny Street fill and connecting embankment. 


Table B—1. 


Comparison of Results with Estimates. Results Corrected for Degree of Consolidation in Wall 
over Condition in the Vehicles. 

STONE WALL. 


Section. 

Results : 
As per Car, 
Cart, and 
Wagon 
Measure¬ 
ment. 

2 

Results: 
Corrected 
for Consoli¬ 
dation in 
Wall over 
Vehicle. 

3 

Estimates 

to 

Hard 

Bottom. 

4 

Differences. 

3 

Per'Cent 
of 

Differences. 


Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 


A_ 

73,793 

59,034 

55,956 

+3,078 

-t-5.5 

One._______ 

108,365 

93,920 

109,674 

-15.754 

—14.4 

Two_ ___ 

142,739 

123.031 

139,485 

-16,454 

—11.8 

Three__ .... _ 

187,912 

162,356 

155,007 

+7,349 

+4.7 

Four _ . __ _ 

182,986 

146,389 

132,993 

+13,396 

+10.1 


The first column of figures in the foregoing table shows the results, 
in numbers of cubic yards, of the measurement in the cars, carts, and 
wagons of delivery of the materials employed in building the stone 
wall in the corresponding sections, according to the reports of the 
engineer to the Harbor Commissioners, in all cases except in that of 
Section 1, wherein the aggregate of returns made by the supervisors 
of construction to the engineer is taken, for reasons heretofore ex¬ 
plained. 

The second column of figures shows, in numbers of cubic yards, 
the volumes of space in the stone wall, which we have estimated the 
volumes reported by vehicle measurement, in each case would fill 
as per preceding tabular exhibit. 

The third column of figures shows, in numbers of cubic yards, the 
volumes of space in the stone wall for each section of the work as 
estimated within the planes of the presupposed slopes and above 
that of “hard bottom,” or that beyond which the testing rod failed 
to sink under the maximum load. 















25 


The fourth column of figures shows the differences, in numbers of 
y^' rc ‘ s 111 eac ;h case > between the numbers in the second and 
tlnrd columns. \\ here the corrected results exceed the estimates to 
hard bottom, the difference has the plus (+) sign affixed; where 
Tk eS «m 1S i SS ^ an the es finiate, the minus (—) sign is used. 

• ^ coliimii of figures shows the percentage of the estimate, 
m each case by which the corrected result exceeds or falls within ifc. 

Table B—2. 


Comparison of Results with Estimates in the several Sections of the Embankment. Results Cor¬ 
rected, for Degree of Consolidation in the Earth Embankment over Condition in the Vehicles. 

EARTH EMBANKMENT. 


Section. 

1 

Results: 
As per Cart, 
Car, and 
Wagon 
Measure¬ 
ment. 

2 

Results: 
Corrected 
for Consoli¬ 
dation in 
Embank¬ 
ment over 
Vehicle. 

3 

Estimates 
to Hard 
Bottom. 

4 

Differences. 

5 

Per Cent, 
of Differ¬ 
ence. 


Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 


A_ 

123,767 

97,336 

100,737 

-3,401 

-3.4 

One__ __ 

100,298 

80,238 

87,811 

—7,573 

-8.6 

One (widening) ___ 

232,881 

185,598 

167,798 

+17,800 

+10.6 

Two _ __ 

157,352 

124,322 

172,134 

—47,812 

—27.7 

Two (widening)_ 

167,912 

132,350 

130,025 

+2,325 

+1.8 

Three_ _ __ 

229,265 

176,910 

196,840 

-19,930 

-10.1 

Four.-- __ _ _ _ _ _ 

235,170 

184,338 

358,448 

—174,110 

—48.6 

Kearny Street Con. Embank’t. __ 

54,154 

43,323 

41,299 

+2,024 

+4.9 


The explanation given of the table (B—1) which has gone before, 
will apply equally to the one now presented, with the understanding 
that this one relates to the earth-work under the several contracts, 
and that the words “earth embankment” are to be substituted for 
those of “stone wall,” wherever the latter occurs in said explanation. 

As hereinbefore mentioned, the following table (B—3) contains the 
figures given in that which precedes, only those for Sections 1 and 2 
are combined respectively with the ones for the widening of these 
sections. So that, in this table the comparison may be made for the 
outcome in the section entire. 


4 e 





















26 


Table B—3. 

Comparison of Results and Estimates. Results Corrected for Degree of Consolidation in Embank¬ 
ment over Condition in the Vehicles. 

EARTH EMBANKMENT. 

(By Sections complete as widened.) 


Section. 

1 

Results: 

As per Cart, 
Car, and 
Wagon 
Measure¬ 
ment. 

2 

Results: 
Corrected 
for Consoli¬ 
dation in 
Embank m’t 
over vehicle. 

3 

Estimates 

to 

Hard 

Bottom. 

4 

Differences. 

5 

Per cent, 
of 

Difference. 


Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 


A___ 

123,767 

97,336 

100,737 

—3,401 

—3.4 

One . . . -- _ — -- 

333,179 

265,836 

255,609 

+10,227 

+4.0 

Two ____ . __ _ _. - 

325,264 

256,672 

302,159 

—45,487 

—15.0 

Three. _ . _ _ _ _ 

229,265 

176,910 

196,840 

—19,930 

—10.1 

Four--- - . _ 

235,170 

184,338 

358,448 

—174,110 

—48.6 


The explanation given for Table B—2, applies equally to this one. 


FINAL CORRECTIONS OF RESULTS 

FOR CHANGES OF PLANS AND FOR EXTRA WORK. 

Stone Wall. 

Before making a comparison of these ratios, other corrections are 
to be applied. 

After the original estimates for Section A had been made, a change 
in the plan of the work increased the amount of stone required by 
4,120 cubic yards. 

This change consisted principally in strengthening the end cross 
wall by an additional amount of material, so as to carry its outer 
face down to two feet below low water mark, upon a slope of 1 on 4, 
instead of 1 on 2, as originally planned and estimated. 

In this respect the change was a prudent one, and the State has a 
better work in consequence. A slight change in alignment, which 
was also made, was prompted by reasons which were doubtless suffi¬ 
cient to the Harbor Commissioners, but have no particular signifi¬ 
cance in this inquiry. We find, on the face of this section, the stone 
carried beyond the line and slope of the original plan, thus involv¬ 
ing an excess of 7,350 cubic yards more than the first estimate. 

Whether this was due to a lateral movement or spreading of the 
structure during the time of its building, or to an inadvertant devia¬ 
tion from the line, of course, we cannot with certainty tell. The 
engineers in charge say that there was such lateral movement as 
mentioned; but our examination of the work, of the character of the 
bottom material, the transverse slope of its planes, and the results 
of our survey, leads us to believe that if such movement did take 
place, it was not enough to account for the excess of material we find 
in place over the line. However this may be, by reason of this extra 
amount of stone the structure is all the better fitted to resist the wearing 
wave action to which it is subjected at this particular locality. 




















27 


My, by reason of the change in cross-section on this division of 
i as ,l own upon a diagram appended hereto, about 1,040 
a rpu 0na cubic yards of stone were made necessary. 

• q 6 corrections on stone work to'be applied to the outcome 
m Section A, therefore, before comparing the ratios of results and 
estimates, is (4,120+7,350+1,040) 12,510 cubic yards. Which will 
make the result, as finally corrected for comparison, (59,034—12,510) 
46,524 cubic yards. 

The original estimate for stone on Section 4 was for the outer em¬ 
bankment only—the same as in other sections, except Section A, 
where there was an end wall, as already explained. 

The specifications for section four provided that there should be a 
covering or pitching of stone from two to three feet in thickness put 
upon the slope of the earth embankment at its southern end. This 
material was estimated as part of and to be paid for as earth. 

The plan was changed from this arrangement, and a stone wall, 
twenty feet wide on top, with the natural slopes of the material, was 
built across the end of the embankment, from its inner slope to the 
hard bank or filling of the shore line. This was done to cut off the 
escape of the mud from the space behind the wall, and to thus econ¬ 
omize in earth (sand) in the main embankment. 

The change added 10,380 cubic yards, as measured in the carts, to 
the amount of stone required for the work, after making due allow¬ 
ance for the pitching, which was paid for as earth. Deducting now 
from this amount 20 per cent, as before for the difference in degree 
of consolidation of the material in the carts and in the work, we 
have 8,304 cubic yards to be subtracted from the heretofore corrected 
result for this section, in order to put it on a fair basis for compari¬ 
son with the others. 

Again, the slope and plan of rock work in this section was changed, 
as in the case of section A, so as to require 1,851 cubic yards in the 
wall more than had been estimated. And, as in section A, so in this 
section, we found stone beyond the outer slope as planned and esti¬ 
mated originally, which warrants us in estimating the extra amount 
to have been 6,500 cubic yards. This must also be subtracted from 
the result before final comparison. 

We have then (8,304+1,851+6,500), 16,655 cubic yards as a total 
amount to be substracted from the heretofore corrected results in 
this section. And this final correction being applied we have 
(146,389—16,655), 129,734 as the correct quantity to use in comparison 
with the estimates and with other results. 

In the same manner we find corrections for Section 3 to be: for 
change at the crest about 1,000 cubic yards, and on the slope, 8,326 
cubic yards. The total correction therefore is 9,326 cubic yards; 
which taken from the corrected result in last table (162,356 8,326), 
we have 154,030 cubic yards as a finally corrected amount for com¬ 
parison in this section. 

With the foregoing amounts substituted respectively for what we 
have heretofore called the “corrected results” of the work in Sec¬ 
tions A, 3 and 4, we have the comparison table for stonework finally 
corrected as follows: 


28 


Table C—1. 

Comparison of Results with Estimates. Results Finally Corrected for Comparison. 

STONE WALL. 


Section. 

1 

Results: 
As per Cart, 
Car, and 
Wagon 
Measure¬ 
ment. 

2 

Results: 

As Finally 
Corrected 
for Com¬ 
parison. 

3 

Estimates 
to Hard 
Bottom. 

4 

Differences. 

5 

Per Cent, 
of 

Difference. 


Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 


A_ 

73,793 

46,524 

55,956 

—9,432 

—16.8 

One_ ___ _ 

108,365 

93,920 

109,674 

—15,754 

— 14.4 

Two_ _ _ _ 

142,739 

123,031 

139,485 

—16,454 

—11.8 

Three-_ _ __ _ 

187,912 

154,030 

155,007 

--977 

—0.6 

Four__ _ _ __ 

182,986 

129,734 

132,993 

—3,259 

—2.4 


CORRECTION FOR CHANGE OF PLANS, ETC. 

Earth Embankment. 

As in the case of the stone, so in the earth-work, before applying 
the results of vehicle measurement, corrected for bank consolidation, 
in establishing a ratio of result to estimate under each contract, we 
must make certain allowances necessitated by the execution of work 
not contemplated in the original estimates or provided for in the 
specifications. 

The change in plan on Section A at the westerly end, required 807 
cubic yards of earth more than had been estimated, and the change 
of cross-section in stone embankment, referred to above, resulted in 
a saving of 2,695 cubic yards of earth measured in the embankment. 

Applying these figures, we have, then, as a final outcome in this 
section for comparison with the original estimate, the corrected result 
(97,336 cubic yards) diminished by 807 cubic yards, and increased 
by 2,695 cubic yards, which would equal 99,224 cubic yards. 

A foundation trench, dredged in the mud for the stone embank¬ 
ment in Section 3, was, according to the engineer’s statements to the 
Harbor Commissioners, and his written and verbal statement to this 
Board, partially or entirely filled with sand before the stone was 
deposited. In this work about 60,000 cubic yards of sand, car meas¬ 
urement, was used, and this amount reduced 20 per cent for consoli¬ 
dation in the embankment is, therefore, to be deducted from the cor¬ 
rected results in the foregoing table. 

By reason of a change in cross-section made on this division, as on 
others, 2,037 cubic yards less earth work was required; and this 
amount is to be deducted from the result shown in the previous table. 

Applying these figures, we have 176,910 diminished by 48,000, and 
increased by 2,037, or 130,947 as the number of cubic yards to be com¬ 
pared finally with the estimate in this section. 

The change made in plan and cross-section for stone work at the 
south end of Section 4, already referred to, reduced the demand for 















29 


earth by 8,304 cubic yards, measured in the embankment. Also the 
change made m cross-sectional disposition of the material, already 
eieried to, in the stone work of this section, diminished the demand 
lor earth by 4,812 cubic yards, measured in the embankment. Apply¬ 
ing these figures, we have as a final outcome for comparison with the 
? r o 1 Fi na u. es 1 tin l ate » the following: 184,338 increased by 8,304 and 
4,812, which gives a total of 197,454 cubic yards. 


.The above constitute all the corrections on earth work made nec¬ 
essary by changes of design, of which we are apprized, to be applied 
lor the purpose of our comparison. 

Applying these corrections, we revise our Table B—2 so that it 
appears as follows : 


Table C— 2. 

Comparison of Results with Estimates. Results finally Corrected for Comparison. 

EARTH EMBANKMENT. 


Section. 

1 

Results: 
As per Cart, 
Car, and 
Wagon 
Measure¬ 
ment. 

2 

Results: 
As finally 
Corrected 
for 

Comparison. 

3 

Estimate 

to 

Hard 

Bottom. 

4 

Differences. 

5 

Per Cent, 
of Dif¬ 
ferences. 


Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 


A_ 

123,767 

99,224 

100,737 

-1,513 

-1.5 

One_ _ _ 

100,298 

80,238 

87,811 

-7,573 

-8.6 

One (widened)__ 

232,881 

185,598 

167,798 

+17,800 

+10.6 

Two ____ 

157,352 

124,322 

172,134 

-47,812 

-27.8 

Two (widened)__ 

167,912 

132,350 

130,025 

+2,325 

+1.8 

Three_ _ __ 

229,265 

130,947 

196,840 

-65,893 

-33.5 

Four__ __ _ __ 

235,170 

197,454 

358,448 

-160,994 

-44.9 

Kearny Street Con. Embankment_ 

54,154 

43,323 

41,299 

+2,024 

+4.9 


And from this table we make up, as in a former case, a third table 
which we call C—3, and in which the earthwork for Sections 1 and 2 
is considered as a whole, including the widening, as follows: 


Table C—3. 

Comparison of Results and Estimates. Results Finally Corrected for Comparison. 

EARTH EMBANKMENT. 


(By Sections complete as widened.) 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Section. 

Results : 
As per Cart, 
Car, and 
Wagon 
Measure¬ 
ment. 

Results : 
As Finally 
Corrected 
for 

Comparison. 

Estimates 

to 

Hard 

Bottom. 

Differences. 

Per Cent, 
of 

Differences. 


Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 

Cub. yds. 


A _ 

123,767 

99,224 

100,737 

—1,513 

—1.5 

One _ _ 

333,179 

265,836 

255,609 

+10,227 

+4.0 

Two _ 

325,264 

256,672 

302,159 

—45,487 

—15.0 

Thrpp __ 

229,265 

130,947 

196,840 

—65,893 

—33.5 

Four____ _____ 

235,170 

197,454 

358,448 

—160,994 

—44.9 

Kearny Street Con. Embankment- 

54,154 

43,323 

41,299 

+2,024 

+4.9 


































30 


FINAL COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH ESTIMATES. 

Taking the stone and earth separately in each section, as per Tables 
C—1 and C—3, we have the following percentages showing the differ- 
erences between final results and the amounts originally estimated 
to hard bottom. (Minus represents per cent, short of, and plus, per 
cent, over the estimate made to the “ hard bottom ” plane.) 

Table D. 


Sections. 


Stone. 


Earth. 


Section A- 

Section One__ 
Section Two _ 
Section Three 
Section Four. 


.Minus 16.8 percent,. 
-Minus 14.4 per cent.. 
.-Minus 11.8 percent.. 
-Minus 0.6 percent.. 
..Minus 2.4 per cent.. 


Minus 1.5 per cent. 
. _ Plus 4.0 per cent. 
Minus 15.0 per cent. 
.Minus 33.5 per cent. 
.Minus 44.9 percent. 


Observe that, in the case of the stone, at the west end of the work, 
on section A, the outcome falls 16.8 per cent, within the estimate to 
“hard bottom,” and that thence eastward through the succeeding 
sections, the percentage of difference decreases, almost without varia¬ 
tion from the rule, to Section 4, at the east end, where the stone 
result falls only 2.4 per cent, within the estimate. 

In the case of the earth, on the contrary, the law of increase is 
reversed. In section A the result falls short of the estimate to hard 
bottom by 1.5 per cent., and in Section 4 by 44.9 per cent., increasing 
gradually from one to the other. 

These results are to be studied in the light of the local conditions 
which influenced their production, and the following are the most 
important: 

(1) . The character of the material used. 

(2) . The character and depth of the mud strata. 

(3) . The exposure to wind, tide, and wave action. 

(4) . The proximity to hard bank lines. 

(5) . The maximum height of the work. 

(6) . The dredging of foundation trenches. 

For the purpose of viewing the results in the light of the data con¬ 
cerning the character of the bottom materials, and the depths of the 
strata thereof, we present the following tabulations and notes: 

















31 


Table E—1. 

Table showing the Relation between the Depth of Mud and the Amount of Material used, in the 

several Sections. 


STONE WORK. 



’"C 

> 

© 

>1 

P 

Averages for the Middle and Outside Test Lines. 

Sections. 

G 2 

i O 
l 

! b 
i gj 

i 2 
! 

1 3 
\ o 

1 © 

1 

© 

b 

© 

rt- 

cr 

2) 

i 

Depth of Soft 

Mud_ 

Depth of Hard 

Mud ___ — 

Total Depth of 
Mud 

Depth of Water_ 

Total Depth be¬ 
low Low Water 
to Hal’d Bot¬ 
tom- 

Height of Top 
of Wall above 
Hard Bottom_ 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

' 8 

A_ 

—16.8 

34.8 

1.8 

6.0 

7.8 

19.9 

27.7 

37.7 

One._ _ __ 

—14.4 

41.3 

3.2 

6.5 

9.7 

25.4 

35.1 

45.1 

Two_ 

—11.8 

48.4 

6.8 

7.1 

13.9 

28.1 

42.0 

52.0 

Three_ . 

—0.6 

55.0 

12.3 

13.3 

25.6 

19.8 

45.4 

55.4 

Four _ _ _ _ 

—2.4 

50.0 

15.4 

16.2 

3J.6 

8.8 

40.4 

50.4 


Table E—2. 


Table showing the Relations between the Character and Depth of Mud, and the Amount of Mate¬ 
rial used in the several Sections. 

EARTH WORK. 



.—. a 

§■« 


Averages for the Middle and Outside Test Lines. 

Sections. 

o 3 

V r 

! o 

I 

! b 

1 5 

! 3 

1 2 
[ 3 

1 o 

i © 
i 


Depth of Soft 
Mud_ _ 

Depth of Hard 
Mud„ _ 

Total Depth of 
Mud _ _ 

Depth of Water. 

Total Depth be¬ 
low Low Water. 

Total Height 
above Hard 
Bottom 


i 

2 

3 

4 

5 


7 

8 

A _ . . 

—1.5 


3.4 

7.3 

10.7 

11.8 

22.5 

35.5 

One _ 

—f—4.0 
—15.0 


7.3 

5.3 

12.6 

17.5 

30.1 

43.1 

Two _ _ 


13.0 

8.1 

21.1 

17.5 

38.6 

51.6 

Tii rpp. 

—33.5 


12.8 

11.4 

24.2 

15.2 

39.4 

52.4 

Four __ — 

—44.9 


14.2 

22.5 

36.7 

5.8 

42.5 

55.5 


Table F—1. 

Comparison of Final Corrected Results with Maximum, Minimum, and Mean Estimates. 

STONE EMBANKMENT. 


Sections. 

Estimates. 

Results. 

To Hard Mud— 
Minimum_ 

Average Depth 
from Top of 
Wall to Hard 
Mud 

To Hard Bot¬ 
tom — Maxi¬ 
mum 

Average Depth 
from Top of 
Wall to Hard 
Bottom _ 

Mean. — Cubic 
yards _ 

Average Depth 
from Top of 
Wall to Mean 
Plane 

Finally Cor¬ 
rected __ 

Deduced Depth 
of Embank¬ 
ment _ 


1 

2 

3 

4 

3 

6 

7 

8 

A 

40,370 

31.7 

55,956 

37.7 

48,163 

34.7 

46,524 

24.8 


84,252 

38.8 

109,674 

45.1 

96,963 

42.0 

93,920 

31.3 

np WA 

109,152 

45.0 

139,485 

52.0 

124,318 

48.6 

123,031 

38.4 

1W()- 

99,057 

42.8 

155,007 

55.4 

127,032 

49.3 

154,030 

45.0 

J. III - 

Four- 

72,011 

35.3 

132,993 

50.5 

102,502 

43.5 

130,046 

40.0 


































































































32 


Table F —2. 

Comparison of Final Corrected Results with Maximum, Minimum, and Mean Estimates. 

EARTH EMBANKMENT. 

(Sections entire, including the widenings.) 


Sections. 

Estimates. 

Finally 

Corrected 

Results. 

To Hard Mud. 

To Hard 
Bottom. 

Mean. 

A_ 

76,664 

100,737 

88,700 

99,224 

One_. .. _ _ 

218,226 

255,604 

236,915 

265,836 

Two_ 

252,622 

302,159 

277,391 

256,672 

Three - _ __ __ . 

151,031 

196,840 

173,935 

130,947 

Four _____ __ _ 

195,255 

358,448 

276,851 

197,454 


REVIEW OF THE OUTCOME OF THE STONE WORK. 

The general character of the bottom at the west end of the work 
was firm and sandy, with a small proportion of gravel and shells. 

In Sections A and 1, it was swept by the tides, and particularly on 
the outer halves of these, was almost free from a soft top stratum. 
This soft material was more apparent along the inside half of the 
work. 

Going eastwardly the bottom gradually became less sandy and 
possessed more of the consistency and character of the ordinary water 
front mud, until, in Section 4, it developed this character perfectly. 

At the west end of the work, in Sections A and 1, the material of 
the structure was subject to the greatest waste from tidal and wave 
action, and to loss from displacement toward the shore by reason of 
the remoteness of the resisting shore line, while, in Section 4, this 
condition was completely reversed, the change being gradual from 
west to east. 

Overlooking the outcome on the stone embankment at the west 
end, we account for the considerable percentages of results as cor¬ 
rected within estimates, by the facts that, first, there was found a firm,, 
sandy, gravelly mud, swept by the tides, and which resisted any great 
sinking of the structure; and, second, the embankment w T as at the 
minimum height, and consequently pressed its foundation the least. 

A comparison of the numbers for Sections A, and 1 and 2, in col¬ 
umns 1, 5, and 8, Table E—1, shows how regularly the per cent, of 
difference between the final results and the estimates to hard bottom 
decreased. 

This result is readily accounted for by the gradual increase of the 
height of the work in deeper water, and the greater depth of mud,, 
admitting a greater settlement toward the bottom. 

A comparison of the numbers for the same sections (A, 1 and 2,) 
in columns 6 and 8 of Table F—1, shows how remarkably nearly 
the bottom of the embankment must coincide with that of the mean 
estimate, i. e., between the hard mud and hard bottom planes. 

Observing the numbers of Sections 3 and 4 in columns 1 and 2 of 
Table E—1, as compared with others above, we account for the con¬ 
siderable depth to which the material has been pressed in Section 4 















33 


by the fact that 79,200 cubic yards of the mud, as measured on the 
scows, was dredged, forming a trench about 100 feet wide and 20 feet 
in depth, to furnish better foundation for the work. And we might 
also account in great degree for the still greater depth to which this 
material in the Section 3 wall has apparently gone, in the same way, 
l° r inf re i^ 0 was a S ^ m ^ ar foundation trench excavated by removing 
64,100 cubic yards, as measured in the scow; but we are told, also, 
that at least 60,000 cubic yards of sand (car measurement), as per our 
deductions in earth work, were dumped into this trench, and that 
the engineers were satisfied by soundings made with a greased lead 
over the adjacent muddy bottom, that they were not losing any con¬ 
siderable quantity by tidal current transportation. 

We observe from columns 2 and 6, Table E—1, that the wall is 
pressed into the mud as follows: 

Section A........... 4.9 feet . 

Section One__ ^ q f pp <- 

Section Two- ””””””feet! 

The average depth to which the dredging in Section 4 was carried 
(as deduced from the account of the quantity removed, 100 feet wide 
and 1,000 feet long) added to the average depth of water (as per the 
sounding records), fixes the plane upon which the stone for this 
section was dumped at about 29 feet below low water. This being 
the case, the wall has sunk on the average eleven feet below the bot¬ 
tom of the trench. 

These figures are reasonable and in accord, considering the height 
of the wall in the several sections and the varying character of the 
bottom, as proven by analysis not reproduced here. 

In the same manner as for Section 4, the plane of the bottom of 
the dredged trench in Section 3, is found to have been 35.4 feet below 
low water, and beyond this the stone sank 9.6 feet, besides displacing 
by pushing downwards, or outwards a layer of sand about 14.0 feet 
in thickness, allowing for compression. Probably sand to the depth 
of three or four feet was taken up into the interstices of the wall, but 
even with this allowance, we are forced to the conclusion that there 
is a result apparent in this outcome, which has not a parallel in the 
other sections of the work. Either there was not so much material 
placed in this section of the stonework, as was reported, or the excess 
is to be accounted for by the sliding away of the rock outside over 
the surface of the sand. 

The cross-sections obtained by us show an apparent uplifting of 
the bottom mud along the face of this section, which is an indication 
of this action. And the dumping of the sand into the trench from 
one narrow trestlework, may have formed a ridge, as it were, down 
whose slopes the stone would move laterally when dumped, and 
when brought under pressure. This movement, however, could not 
have been considerable, for there is no sufficient displacement of the 
face of the wall which shows such result. 

Without stopping to discuss the form which this wall may have 
taken in sinking, and which according to well known instances is 
not the flat bottomed prismoid assumed; and without introducing 
here a discussion of pressure on the bottom planes in the several 
5 e 





34 


sections, and their probable resulting forms, we conclude our 
special consideration of the results on the stonework, by expressing 
the opinion, as far as we can form one, that the quantity of stone 
reported to have been furnished under the several contracts, was 
actually delivered (as measured in a loose state in the vehicle), 
except in the case of the contract for Section 3, where there may 
have been 20,000 to 30,000 cubic yards more stone reported than was 
delivered. 


REVIEW OF THE OUTCOME OF THE EARTHWORK. 

Viewing now the outcome of the earthwork in the several sections, 
we see (Table E—2, column 1), that the results in Sections 3 and 4 
are far short of the estimate to hard bottom, and our observations 
and calculations lead us to believe that these quantities were deposi¬ 
ted, as accounted for, according to the system of measurement 
adopted on the work. 

Taking these results as a criterion, and considering the influences 
heretofore mentioned, we are not so well assured that the quantities 
charged against Section 2 were thus faithfully delivered, although 
the margin for an excess would certainly fall within 10,000 cubic 
yards. 

We here remark (referring to Table C—2) that if any such over¬ 
return has been made in this section it has Seen under the contract 
for widening; at the same time we call attention to the fact, that the 
work of widening followed close upon, and was in fact, continuous 
with the original filling of the section to ninety-one feet in width, 
and the loss from spreading shorewards, and sinking on the inner 
unsupported edge would naturally fall in the widening work, and 
hence this result could not be expected to come so near to the pre¬ 
liminary estimate as that for the original earthwork to ninety-one 
feet. 

Passing to Section A we have an outcome which, supposing that 
the earth embankment preserved its prismoidal shape in sinking, 
would show that its bottom rested upon a surface only a foot above 
the plane of so-called “hard bottom.” The fact is that the bank 
could not have thus sunk into the bottom in this section. The ma¬ 
terial below the first thin stratum called “soft mud,” was sand, very 
much of the same character as that used for bank construction, and 
we are of opinion that its surface plane was not penetrated, nor the 
material thereof pressed out by the embankment. 

Upon the basis of this degree of settlement, to the plane of “sand” 
or “ hard mud,” it will be seen (Table F—2) that the material put in 
Section A exceeded that required to hard mud by (99,224—76,664) 
22,560 cubic yards. 

It is impossible to express a decided opinion as to w T hat has become 
of this material. It is said that much was lost, by wave and tidal 
action, during the course of construction and subsequently; this is 
not at all improbable, for the exposure thereto has undoubtedly been 
great. Again, we find the basin behind this section to be much filled 
in; although it is impossible to say how much of this filling has been 
contributed by sands from the work. There is undoubtedly an accre¬ 
tion to the extent of 20,700 cubic yards, along the back of the section 


35 


and within 150 feet of its inner crest line (as shown by profiles 
recently made), which has a slight slope away from the bank—as a 
beach spread out from it. Beyond this the new deposit extends for 
several hundred feet, but with less depth. 

Finally, returning to Section 1, it will be seen (Table F—2) that, 
admitting the bank in this section to have settled to the “hard mud” 
plane, which in the light of our study is the probability, there is an 
excess of result over estimates of (265,836—218,226)47,610 cubic yards. 

As in the case of Section A, we cannot say unreservedly w T hat has 
become of this material, but w T e call attention to the fact that the 
same influences were at w r ork to remove and spread it from the back 
line of the bank into the adjacent water space toward the shore; and 
to the further fact, disclosed by our survey, that there are, in the rear 
of the embankment, within 150 feet of its crest, 53,000 cubic yards of 
material lying above, the original surface, and, furthermore, that 
this apparent filling is continued shorewards with a diminishing 
depth. 

In the case of Section 1, the construction to 91 feet in width, was 
finished about two months and a half before the widening work com¬ 
menced. This period gave ample time for settlement of the bank, 
and consequent bulging up of the mud along its inside face, and for 
the loss of sand from that face by tidal current and wave action, so 
as to form a beach-like slope under the side of the widening, such as 
w T e find now behind it. In view of this, we cannot altogether recon¬ 
cile the outcome on the widening work to the lesson on the original 
work. Or, in other w r ords, if the material bulged up and spread out 
behind the bank as originally constructed, was pushed before the 
widening filling and did not rest underneath it, then the appearance 
of accretion behind the work as widened is due, in a measure, to the 
original construction, and not alone to the effect of, and loss of mate¬ 
rial from, the widening work. 

The outcome largely over estimates, under the contract for the con¬ 
necting embankment and Kearny street fill, is explained by the fact 
that this w r ork was, as a pier head, built out into the current and 
dowui a gradually deepening slope of water and mud; large quanti¬ 
ties of material were washed from the head of the work by the waves 
and current, and the whole mass had an opportunity for spreading 
into the mud, down the slope in front of it, which was not presented 
in the same degree to any other portion cf the work. 

Reviewing the situation with respect to the earth-work results, in 
the light of the tabulated data, our opinion is, that in Section 3 the 
outcome, after making deduction for the sand which was put in the 
trench under the stone wall, is within the limits of the probable 
amount of material delivered. Without this deduction it exceeds 
such limits by 15,000 to 20,000 cubic yards. 

In Section 2, including the widening, the result is such as to war¬ 
rant us in expressing the opinion that the amount is w’ithin 10,000 
cubic yards of the probability, and in Section 1 it is within 15,000 
cubic yards of the probability. . 

It is not to be understood that we express the unqualified opinion 
that there have been excessive returns of materials to the above 
amounts; with the exception of the case of Section o, it is possible 


36 


that all the material reported has been put into the work, though we 
do not believe that proof of the fact by an engineering investigation 
can be established; and the indications are from the record that the 
reverse is the case, to the extent of the amounts mentioned. 

It should of course be understood, that if we suppose an excessive 
return of stone to have been made in Section 3, the same cannot be 
said of the earth. The excess must be either in stone or earth, and 
not in both to the amounts mentioned, since in this case these mater¬ 
ials may replace each other in the work, except that the quantity 
would be less in the case of the earth. 

We have reviewed Sections 1 and 2, each as a whole, although the 
earth for each was put in under two contracts—one to build to 
ninety-one feet in width, and the other to widen to 200 feet.. 

It is probable that some material was reported as having been 
put in under the widening contracts which should have gone in 
under the original work; but this cannot be proven; for in the 
case of Section 2, particularly, the several works were being carried 
on at the same time with the same class of material, and merged into 
one another, so that the bulk of the spreading and loss might have 
fallen upon the widening, and the plane of separation could not be 
discovered. This paragraph is not to be taken as in conflict with 
what we have already said concerning the quantity of material 
reported over the limits of probability. If, as we have pointed out 
as likely, more material was reported than was delivered, it was done 
under the widening contracts. 

We are told that deep holes and crevices filled with soft mud 
existed, into which unexpected quantities of material had to be 
dumped in order to complete the filling. Our study of this subject 
in the light of the records of the test rod and pile experiments, for¬ 
bid an acceptance of this theory. The bottom mud has been shown 
by the above examinations to be remarkably homogeneous in char¬ 
acter, and free from local irregularity of depth and consistency. 

If casual and unexpected sinkings have occurred during the prog¬ 
ress of the work, they may well have been the result of an irregular 
line of filling causing lateral or longitudinal displacement, rather 
than the result of an irregular bottom resistance. 

If it be asked what has become of the mud which has been dis¬ 
placed by the wall and embankment, the answer is, it has, first, been 
taken up into the void spaces between the stones and between the 
grains of sand; and, second, has been displaced laterally—chiefly 
toward the shore, where it is now to be seen bulged up above low- 
water mark, in places where formerly there was eight to twelve feet of 
water at low tide. 

The displaced material shorewards, at the east end of Section 1, 
and in Sections 2, 3, and 4, is marked, and, in extent, apparently 
sufficient to account for the movement from the foundation of the 
work. 

As to the character of the accretion or displaced material behind 
the greater portion of Section 1 and Section A, its slope away from 
the bank indicates at least a wash, as of a beach, down from the bank 
filling. If there was any displacement from below the bank, which 
caused the bottom to rise along its edge as in other sections, the evi¬ 
dence of it has been for the most part obliterated by material washed 


37 


from the bank. The surface material now seen at this locality is a 
sort black mud, doubtless a deposit from the sewers which discharge 
into the basin. 


SPECIAL POINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS. 

SETTLEMENT OF THE WALL AND EMBANKMENT. 

The extent of settlement of this wall and embankment into the 
strata on which it is founded is a subject on which much might be 
written, but we refrain from burdening our report with scientific 
discussion which is unnecessary for its purpose. 

Suffice it to say that we have looked into this matter, and have 
expended much labor upon it, in the light of the records of the bot¬ 
tom tests* made by driving piles and pipes, by a former engineer of 
the Harbor Commissioners. And we are satisfied that neither the 
wall nor the embankment materials have ever penetrated below the 
plane of so-called “hard bottom,” notwithstanding the fact that the 
dredging was executed to the extent elsewhere mentioned in this 
report under the site of the wall in Sections 3 and 4. 

The examinations upon which we base our opinion were made by 
the then acting Chief Engineer before the work commenced, for the 
purpose of testing the bearing power of the bottom material upon 
which the wall was to be founded. 

It is not scientific, nor logical, nor yet practical, to say that these 
observations are not to be relied on just becausethe amount of 
material put into the work has apparently been in excess of the 
estimated quantity to “hard bottom,” when there never has been 
a definite consideration of the other possible causes for the anomaly, 
a single note kept on the pile-driving work since carried on, or an 
experiment made to contradict their argument, nor even a theoretical 
demonstration attempted upon the basis of the preliminary observa¬ 
tions themselves. 

We certainly do not feel at liberty to discredit the results of an 
official testing made at considerable expense before any work was 
commenced, and presumably purely in search of facts. 

If indeed the result of these observations are worthless, it is easy 
to show them to be so. It is easy to test to a pound by experimentally 
eliminating the influence of friction, the bearing power of every 
stratum of mud, where the wall is not built, and if we had had the 
means we would have had this done for the purpose of our study. 

MEASUREMENT OF CARS, CARTS, ETC. 

Appended hereto will be found the detail of all measurements 
made of cars, carts, etc., of which we have found record. 

The general subject of the comparative degrees of consolidation of 
materials as resting in natural deposits, as loosened and thrown into 
cars, or other vehicles, and again compacted in an embankment, has 
already been discussed, and application to the case in hand has been 

To these deductions we have no further additions to make except 
in the case of sand delivered in cars. 



38 


For the sake of discussion, and to bring the results under all the 
contracts approximately to a common basis for the purpose of com¬ 
paring ratios of variation from estimates, we assumed that the dif¬ 
ference in bulk between the car loads of sand at the pit and at the 
dump would be five per cent, of the volume at the pit; that cars 
loaded with two scoopfuls of sand, each measuring 21 cubic yards, or 
51 in all, would contain about five cubic yards in volume on arriving 
at the dump, as claimed. But the fact is, that material taken up in a 
scoop of this description, rests therein in the loosest possible condition, 
particularly if it be wet sand, and the further fact is, that sand 
carefully put in a box with shovels, even, will, if dry, consolidate by 
shaking, 9 per cent., and if wet, 11£ per cent. 

These figures are given by Gilmore, in his work on “Limes, Hy¬ 
draulic Cement, etc.” as the result of his own experiments. Trautwine, 
in his “Engineers’ Pocket-book,” cites examples where sands were 
consolidated to a greater degree by shaking, and a much greater 
degree by tamping. 

Now, if there were 5.25 (5!) cubic yards, as measured in the scoops, 
regularly loaded in the cars at the pit, this material may well have 
been consolidated, by shaking, 7 or 8 per cent, in transit to the dump, 
so that the loads there would measure about 4.85 cubic yards. We 
are informed that the cars were uniformly thus loaded, and we are 
of opinion that this material would settle in the cars to the per cent, 
just stated. 

We base this opinion upon ample practical precedent, but particu¬ 
larly upon the result of the observations made on May 17, 1881, 
which (however unreliable they may have been as a gauging of the 
volume of the average carful as loaded) showed a loss of bulk in 
transit of nearly 8 per cent., and in this respect are admitted to have 
afforded a fair test, and which, in the absence of other data on this 
point, must be taken as a criterion for the whole. This being the 
case, all sand delivered in this manner fell short of the measurement 
paid for, about 3 per cent, thereof. 

If the car loads of sand measured five cubic yards in volume on 
an average, at the dump, the scoop must have been filled to a little 
more than cubic yards each time at the loading. 

6>2 J • 2 . ^ 

A PROPER ENGINEERING SYSTEM. 

The system of measuring quantities in carts, cars, or wagons, is the 
most uncertain method of gauging the extent of service rendered in 
earth and stone work, and should never be resorted to when possible 
to avoid it, although in all cases a number of partial checks on the 
results are available, and if these are properly applied, a fair measure¬ 
ment may be obtained. 

In the first place the total amount of material taken from a quarry 
can be measured in the cutting by surveying and resurveying the 
site at intervals; so that the tallying of loads need only be necessary 
for the purpose of classification, and to account for its disposition in 
the different sections of a work. 

The average weight of the cart or wagon load of stone of the vari¬ 
ous grades, being established by repeated trials, a condition of the 
contract might impose a penalty upon the contractor when at any¬ 
time a cart or wagon load would be found to fall more than a certain 
per centage below this weight. Under such a stipulation, carts and 
wagons would always be fairly loaded. 



39 


The bell punch system could readily be applied in the counting of 
vehicles in a manner that would make it very difficult for the tally 
clerk to falsify the daily return as to number of loads brought down. 
Or the check paper system might be arranged to afford a close check 
on the number and loading, and to classify material also, if a tally 
were kept at the quarry as well as at the dump. 

Although it is true that there would frequently be a vitiation of 
results, or a resurvey necessitated by drifting sand, in the case of 
measuring sand in the cuttings, yet such measurement could be 
effected, for short intervals of time, particularly, when the sand is 
wet, as would enable the engineer to hold almost a complete check 
on the contractor as to the volumes of material delivered during 
those periods. 

Material taken from lots and streets where grading is going on in 
firm soil, can of course be measured in place ; and observationscon- 
tinued for a brief period of time would establish what the average 
load of the vehicle of each class, when thoroughly well filled, meas¬ 
ured in the cutting from whence taken. Sand car beds could be 
arranged at slight expense, so that the loads could be quickly and 
accurately gauged. 

The system of gauging the loads by eye measurement alone, must 
be very uncertain of correct results, no matter how conscientious 
the overseer may be. Starting with a few loads measured for a 
guide, as weeks go by, the eye may become gradually used to a 
smaller load, or to a larger one, so that injustice will be done one 
way or the other. By having proper side boards on the cars the eye 
judgment can be checked many times a day, and a fair measurement 
be made without loss of time; and this will render it possible to 
apply the next check. 

The system of “ throwing out” loads for slack loading is a bad one, 
and is almost certain to lead to error one way or the other. Every 
cart, car, or wagon should have its number and be measured; every 
load should be tallied, the number of the vehicle, and the proportion 
of its full load delivered each time, should be registered in form 
books prepared for the purpose, and these, certified to by the tally 
clerk each day, should be preserved as records. 

Daily returns should be made of the result of each day’s work, and 
these should be posted in account form in such manner as to show 
at a glance the extent of and the circumstances of each day’s work, 
and the condition of the work to date. 

There should be a daily journal kept of such work, describing the 
manner and the circumstances of its prosecution, the force employed 
thereon, the conditions that may have facilitated or retarded its pro¬ 
gress, the classes of material delivered, the sources from whence 
derived, the points according to survey stations where deposited or 
used, the phenomena of settlement or lateral movement of the 
structure, the loss of material in any way detected, and the effects 
observed. „ 1 . . 

There should be a resurvey made of the work in progress once 
every month, and special instrumental examinations made to ascer¬ 
tain the extent of notable phenomena—such as the breaking away 
of part of the bank, or lateral movement thereof, and the bulging 
up of adjacent bottom mud; and these survey notes should be 
platted to tell graphically the history of the work. 

There should be monthly progress reports, and final reports on the 


40 


completion of each contract job, which would give the important 
results and conclusions in brief, and afford a key to the whole situa¬ 
tion, as shown in detail in the journal, tally returns, and survey 
notes and plats. 

The augmentation in bulk of the materials, from their state in 
nature to their condition in the vehicles, and subsequent loss of vol¬ 
ume in transit, and consolidation in the wall and embankment, 
should, under the circumstances, be made the subject of special study. 

Thorough and conclusive testing of the bearing power of the bot¬ 
tom strata and substrata should be made, and especially should this 
be done when unexpected sinkings and loss of material are contin¬ 
ually occurring. 

Attention to these points, the formulation of results, and deduction 
of rules therefrom for guidance in planning, estimating upon, con¬ 
tracting for, and managing the work in the future, undoubtedly 
constitute the engineering of such an enterprise. * 

THE ENGINEERING OF THE SEA-WALL. 

We regret to say that the engineering of the sea-wall has not been 
thus conducted. 

In the matter of accounting for material delivered, reliance has 
been placed altogether upon the integrity and judgment of tally 
clerks, so far as we could ascertain. Their judgment has been 
checked by a very small number of measurements in the vehicles, 
as the records show. Reliance has been placed, without adequate 
checks upon their returns of quantities of material delivered. The 
result may have been a complete protection of the State’s interest; 
perfect honesty and efficiency may have been present in the persons 
of the tally clerks and supervisors of construction, but the functions 
of the engineers who have inaugurated and perpetuated such a sys¬ 
tem, on a public work, have been lost sight of. 

In the matter of studying and recording the history of the work, 
nothing has been done. There has been no journal kept; no pro¬ 
gress surveys made; no formulation of results; no examinations 
to ascertain definitely the causes of the excess over estimates of 
material used, and no reports filed, except the returns or statements 
of amounts on which the contractor has been paid. . 

In the construction of this work opportunity has been furnished 
for the acquirement of knowledge, by experiment and observation, 
of great value to the State in its future conduct as a guide in con¬ 
tracting, but nothing of this kind has been done. 

If the engineers have any definite knowledge on record for future 
use and guidance, of results, and of the causes of the effects they 
have observed on this work ; if data have been collected from which 
may be determined whether or not the prices paid were reasonable, 
or too high, we have not seen the record or learned of its existence. 
In these respects, we are prepared to say, the interests of the State 
have not been protected. 

Furthermore, the way has been left open for just what has occurred : 
a public accusation of wrong-doing; an investigation of the final 
records by an expert accountant; and a report from him tending to 
confirm the suspicion that the State’s interests have already suffered 
financially to a very great extent. 


41 


MR. CRANE’S REPORT. 

The report of Mr. Crane to your Excellency was based upon the 
nnai records of the office, and not upon the detail of engineering 
notes and accounts, nor upon an engineering consideration of the 
subject. 

According to the records, in the light of his examination—which 
was a.11 he could be expected to make—the facts were just as stated 
by Mr. Crane; and his inferences were just such as the non-techni- 
cal business man might be expected to draw. 

Nevertheless, as we have shown, his conclusions were in error. If 
more material has been paid for, as measured in the cars, carts, and 
wagons, than was delivered upon the several sections- of this work, 
the proportion to the whole amount has been much less than reported 
by Mr. Crane. It has been so small, that without a very expensive 
investigation we cannot say positively that such was the fact, but we 
draw conclusions which are undoubtedly substantiated by the records 
and the knowledge of facts at command. 


CONCLUSIONS. 

To recapitulate: We call attention to the facts, first, that the chief 
cause of misunderstanding as to the apparently great excesses of the 
results over the estimates on this work has been the fact that the 
material was contracted for in the loose state, as delivered in cars, 
carts, and wagons, and placed in a large wall and embankment where 
its degree of consolidation is from 15 to 25 per cent, greater than in 
the condition whereunder it was measured, so that the hundred 
cubic yards of the contracts and of the results have filled only sev¬ 
enty-five to eighty-five cubic yards of the work as estimated; and 
second, that work which was not included in the original estimates 
was performed under the contracts, and thus swelled the aggregate 
of the results. 

The conclusions which are justified by the engineering record and 
the knowledge of physical facts acquired by us are now presented 
as follows: 

Section 1— It is probable that more earth was reported as having 
been delivered under the contract for widening Section 1 than was 
placed in this work. 

The extent of this over return, in the light of the comparisons 
based upon the available data, probably did not exceed 15,000 cubic 
yards, though it is possible that it extended to 20,000 cubic yards, as 
measured in the embankment. 

Section 2.— It is highly probable that material was reported as hav¬ 
ing been put into the widening of Section 2 which should have been 
reported under the contract work for Section 2 to the original width 
of ninety-one feet. The extent of this change was probably about 
10,000 cubic yards. 



42 


In addition to this, it is a possible conclusion, in the light of the 
comparisons upon the data at command, that more earth was re¬ 
turned as having been put into Section 2 than was actually delivered 
for this purpose. If such was the case, the over return was made 
under the widening contract and did not exceed 10,000 cubic yards. 

Section 3 .—In the case of Section 3 it is highly probable, in the 
light of the data at command, that either the stone reported as hav¬ 
ing been delivered exceeded the amount actually put into the work 
by 20,000 to 30,000 cubic yards, or the earth (sand) delivered fell short 
of the amount reported by 15,000 to 25,000 cubic yards, as measured 
in the embankment. 

Section A .—In the case of Section A, a conclusion is possible upon 
the comparisons and facts, that the earth reported was about 5,000 to 
8,000 cubic yards in excess of the amount delivered, though the con¬ 
ditions are too obscure upon which to ground a decided opinion. 

With the above mentioned exceptions, the outcome on this work,, 
as a whole, is about what might have been expected so far as we are 
able to figure from any data at our command. 

On a work of this kind, conducted as this has been, there may 
have been error of the character, for instance, such as we have 
pointed out under the heading of “Measurement of Cars, Carts, etc.,” 
or there may have been intentional wrongdoing in the matter of 
gauging and reporting the loads of material delivered, throughout 
the whole, so as to defy discovery by the method of detection we 
have had at command; but if such was the fact, in our judgment, 
the percentage of the total amount, under any contract, thus wrong¬ 
fully reported, was small and not capable of detection by any engi¬ 
neering method now possible of application. 

We called attention to the fact that an observer of the progress of 
this work, as it has been managed, might easily be led astray in 
judging of the returns. 

Until a late period of its prosecution, the system of “throwing out” 
loads for slack measurement was practiced without making any 
record whatever of the details of the operation. 

A person, noticing insufficiently loaded cars coming down every 
day, upon examining the returns would find all cars rated at 
five cubic yards each, and not knowing the system pursued, would 
immediately conclude that the returns were false. 

During the earlier periods of the work, the cars were not always 
rated at five cubic yards, but ranged from four to five. Yet no 
record is made of the reason why; and it is only by close study of 
the notes, and by inquiry, that the explanation is found in the fact 
of the condition of the cars and the class of materials being trans¬ 
ported. 

We find all the way through the records some evidence of “ throw¬ 
ing out loads” for “short measure,” but the extent to which this was 
done in the protection of the State’s interests, is undiscernable. 


43 


CLOSING. 

In closing this report, we remind your Excellency that our investi¬ 
gation has been devoted exclusively to the engineering conduct of 
the work. 

We have examined the engineering notes, maps, and records, and 
the sea-wall and embankment itself; and have sought to obtain the 
proper interpretation of the notes, and to supplement them, where 
not clear and explicit, by information from the engineers in charge 
of the work. 

We have not sought nor received information regarding the busi¬ 
ness conduct of the work on the part of the Harbor Commissioners; 
nor have we considered information regarding the engineering con¬ 
duct thereof which has come to us from sources other than official. 

We have made such an engineering examination upon the records 
and the visible facts as the means at our disposal have made possible, 
and we have gone no further. 

It will be seen, then, that our investigation has not related to the 
acts of the Board of Harbor Commissioners, but to those of their 
engineers and assistants in the engineering department. 

Furthermore, we desire to express our opinion, that in the absence 
of a system of checks and periodical instrumental examinations of 
the work in progress, it has been quite possible for the returns of 
material delivered to have exceeded the quantities actually put in 
the work to a greater extent even than that indicated as probable, 
without the knowledge of the engineer in charge. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servants, 

WM. HAM HALL, S. E., 
CALVIN BROWN, C. E., 
FRANK SOULE, Jr. 



















APPENDICES. 











APPENDIX A. 


'Memorandum of the Dates of the Contracts on the Sea-Wall Work, 

AND OF THE 


Commencement and Completion of Work under Each Contract. 


Section of the Work. 

Date of Letting 
the 

Contract. 

Date of 

Commencing the 
Work. 

Date of 

Completing the 
Heavy Work. 

Date of Final 
Completion of 
the Work. 

Kearny Street Fill and connect- 





ing embankment __ _ 

Oct. 1, 1878 

Oct. 11,1878 

Jan. 20,1879 

Oct. 28, 1879 

Section 1 

Sept. 13, 1878 

f Nov. -, 1878 

1 __ 

July 19, 1879 



(Jan. 4,1879 

J 

Section 2 

Nov. 5, 1878 

Mar. 31, 1879 


Jan. —, 1880 

Widening of Section 1-— - 

Aug. 27, 1879 

Sept. 25, 1879 

April 30, 1880 

May 15, 1880 

Widening of Section 2. .. . 

Aug. 27, 1879 

Oct. 7, 1879 

Feb. 25, 1880 

April 30, 1880 

Section 3_ _ --- 

Jan. 25, 1879 

Jan. 2, 1880 

Dec. 16, 1880 

April 8, 1881 

• 

Section A._ _. __ -- — 

Dec. 18, 1879 

Mar. 8, 1880 

Oct. 31,1880 

Jan. 24, 1881 

Section 4_ . -— 

Mar. 27, 1880 

Nov. 1, 1881 

June 4, 1881 

Aug. 12, 1881 


appendix b. 


Memorandum of the Measurement of Car, Cart, and Wagon Loads. 


Sand Cars of A. Onderdonk. 

Measured by Mr. H. C. Holmes, Ass’t Engineer, at the beginning of the widening of Section 1. 

Cars measured loaded with sand. Loads shaped above sides into 
form nf truncated pyramids. Measured at the dump after a haul of 
Ibo“t one mOe ed Sir beds about 10 feet x 8.2 feet x 1 foot; loaded 
and shaped 0.6 to 0.8 feet above sides. 





























48 


Twelve cars loaded with steam shovel or scoop (two scoopfuls each), 
and shaped for measurement by hand-shovel: 


No. 1—5.02 cub. yds. 
No. 2—4.95 cub. yds. 
No. 3—5.02 cub. yds. 
No. 4—4.92 cub. yds. 


No. 5—5.16 cub. yds. 
No. 6—4.96 cub. yds. 
No. 7—5.02 cub. yds. 
No. 8—4.95 cub. yds. 


No. 9—4.95 cub. yds. 
No. 10—4.64 cub. yds. 
No. 11—4.94 cub. yds. 
No. 12—4.94 cub. yds. 


12 cars=59.47 cub. yds. 


Average, 4.96 cub. yds. 


Eleven cars loaded with hand-shovels and shaped for measure¬ 
ment, as follows: 


No. 1—5.32 cub. yds. 
No. 2—5.44 cub. yds. 
No. 3—5.57 cub. yds. 
No. 4—5.57 cub. yds. 


No. 5—5.50 cub. yds. 
No. 6—5.18 cub. yds. 
No. 7—5.44 cub. yds. 
No. 8—5.51 cub. yds. 


No. 9—5.24 cub. yds. 
No. 10—5.92 cub. yds. 
No. 11—6.00 cub. yds. 


11 cars=60.69 cub. yds. Average, 5.52 cub. yds. 


When loaded with steam scoop the car does not get perfectly filled 
in corners, so that when the load is shaped the result is less than 
when loaded by hand. 


Sand Cars of A. OnderdonJc. 

Measured July 1, 1880, by Mr. F. A. Bishop, Chief Engineer. 

Method of measurement same as that described for Holmes’ meas¬ 
urement of cars from the same lot, made at commencement of work 
on contracts for widening Sections 1 and 2. 


No. 1—4.72 cub. yds. 
No. 17—3.57 cub. yds. 
No. 8—4.57 cub. yds. 
No. 20—4.84 cub. yds. 
No. 2—5.17 cub. yds. 
No. 15—5.36 cub. yds. 
No. 28—4.71 cub. yds. 
No. 25—5.37 cub. yds. 


No. 31—5.42 cub. yds. 
No. 10—5.06 cub. yds. 
No. 3—4.88 cub. yds. 
No. 4—5.19 cub. yds. 
No. 21—4.95 cub. yds. 
No. 13—5.08 cub. yds. 
No. 30i-5.32 cub. yds. 
No. 5—5.08 cub. yds. 


No. 26—5.11 cub. yds. 
No. 27—4.56 cub. yds. 
N6. 6—5.08 cub. yds. 
No. 22—4.98 cub. yds. 

20 cars=99.02 cub. yds. 
Average, 4.95 cub. yds. 


The sides of Car No. 17 had opened and let out a considerable por¬ 
tion of the load. Casting out this car (as is probably fair), the nine¬ 
teen remaining cars contain 98.92—3.57=95.35 cubic yards, or an 
average load of 5.02 cubic yards. 

Cars measured loaded with sand; loads shaped for measurement 
on the dump after transportation one and one fourth miles. Load¬ 
ing had been done with steam scoop. 


Sand Cars of A. Onderdonk. 


Measured June 17, 1880, by Mr. F. A. Bishop, Chief Engineer. 

Same memoranda as in case of cars measured July 1, 1880. 


No. 1—4.72 cub. yds. 
No. 2—4.99 cub. yds. 
No. 3—5.35 cub. yds. 
No. 4—5.39 cub. yds. 
No. 5—4.91 cub. yds. 


No. 6—5.49 cub. yds. 
No. 7—5.52 cub. yds. 
No. 8—5.55 cub. yds. 
No. 9—5.16 cub. yds. 


No. 10—5.82 cub. yds. 

Total___52.90 cub. yds. 
Average, 5.29 cub. yds. 




49 

Stone Cars of A. Onderdonlc. 


Measurements made June 25, 1830, by F. A. Bishop, Chief Engineer. 

Cars of same dimensions as sand cars, only these stone cars have 
the side boards taken off. 

Measurements made of loaded cars at the quarry; loads of stone 
shaped by hand for measurement very much as loads were shaped 
for measurement of sand loads. 


No. 33—3.74 cub. yds. 
No. 38—3.83 cub. yds. 
No. 1—3.75 cub. yds. 
No. 2—4.20 cub. yds. 


No. 12—3.47 cub. yds. 
No. 5—3.72 cub. yds. 
No. 21—3.63 cub. yds. 
No. 52—4.26 cub. yds. 


No. 23—3.78 cub. yds. 

9 cars=34.38 cub. yds. 
Average, 3.82 cub. yds. 


Sand Cars of A. Onderdonk. 

Measured May 17, 1881, by the Engineers, in presence of the Harbor Commissioners and Mr. 

L. E. Crane. 

Loads shaped for measurement as in former cases mentioned. 

At the dump. No. 1—4.40 cub. yds. 

No. 2—4.56 cub. yds. 

No. 3—4.88 cub. yds. 

No. 4—4.60 cub. yds. 

No. 5—4.70 cub. yds. 

No. 6—4.63 cub. yds. 

Average, 4.63 cub. yds. 


At the pit where loaded. No. 1—5.03 cub. yds. 

No. 2—5.12 cub. yds. 

Average, 5.075 cub. yds. 

It is explained that these measurements were made near the close 
of the work, when the scoop was being worked against a very low 
bank and consequently did not fill well. 


Carts of Hancock & Kelso. 

Measured by Mr. H. C. Holmes, Ass’t Engineer, the day before work commenced on Section A. 


Carts measured up to the plane even with the tops of the side boards. 
Cart-beds about 5.3 feet x 3.5 feet. Cart-beds one foot deep, side 
boards six inches high. 


No. 1—24.00 cub. feet. 
No. 2—26.26 cub. feet. 
No. 3—24.78 cub. feet. 
No. 4—26.76 cub. feet. 
No. 5—26.60 cub. feet. 
No. 6—26.61 cub. feet. 
No. 7—25.73 cub. feet. 
No. S—26.09 cub. feet. 


No. 9—24.95 cub. feet. 
No. 10—26.09 cub. feet. 
No. 11—26.09 cub. feet. 
No. 12—26.89 cub. feet. 
No. 13—26.09 cub. feet. 
No. 14—26.72 cub. feet. 
No. 15—26.42 cub. feet. 
No. 16—26.42 cub. feet. 


No. 17—26.78 cub. feet. 
No. 18—27.15 cub. feet. 
No. 19—27.14 cub. feet. 
No. 20—26.63 cub. feet. 
No. 21—26.59 cub. feet. 
No. 22—27.03 cub. feet. 

577.88 cub. feet. 


Average capacity per cart 26.26 cubic feet to level of side boards. 
Inspectors instructed to have carts loaded at least one inch above 
the level of the side boards. 

7 e 




50 


Carts of A. Onderdonk. 

Measured April 30, 1880, by F. A. Bishop, Chief Engineer. 

Carts with side boards all flaring. Loads considered a prism of 
trapezoidal section np to level of the tops of side boards. Loads con¬ 
sidered a pyramid above level of side boards. 


No. 5—1.003 cub. yds. 
No. 7—1.02 cub. yds. 
No. 18—1.05 cub. yds. 
No. 12—1.07 cub. yds. 
No. 22—1.005 cub. yds. 
No. 3—1.11 cub. yds. 


No. 17—1.02 cub. yds. 
No. 1—1.08 cub. yds. 
No. 4—1.23 cub. yds. 
No. 6—0.97 cub. yds. 
No. 26—1.04 cub. yds. 
No. 13—1.06 cub. yds. 


No. 11—1.07 cub. yds. 
No. 9—0.92 cub. yds. 

14 carts—14.648 cub. yds. 
Average.-1.045 cub. yds. 


Carts of Hancock & Kelso. 


Measurements made June 24, 1880. 
No. 20—1.29 cub. yds. 


No. A—1.52 cub. yds. 
No. 39—1.36 cub. yds. 
No. 16—1.32 cub. yds. 
No. 32—1.16 cub. yds. 
No. 7—1.17 cub. yds. 
No. 584—1.42 cub. yds. 
No 28—1.23 cub. yds. 


No. 34—1.35 cub. yds. 
No. 42—1.57 cub. yds. 
No. 28—1.26 cub. yds. 
No. 33—1.36 cub. yds. 
No. 13—1.38 cub. yds. 
No. 43—1.20 cub. yds. 


No. 32£-1.19 cub. yds. 
No. 17—1.25 cub. yds. 
No. 41—1.22 cub. yds. 
No. 24—1.23 cub. yds. 
No. 22—1.26 cub. yds. 
No. 18—1.03 cub. yds. 


20 carts=25.77 cub. yds. 


Average, 1.289 cub. yds. 


Wagons. 

Measured by Tilton, Supervisor of Construction, Section 2. (Record in a tally or memo, book.) 

Twenty-two wagons ranged from 1.5 to 1.8 cubic yards, averaging 
1.6 cubic yards. 


Cars. 

Measured by Tilton. (Memorandum book.) 

5.61 cub. yds. 5.14 cub. yds. 5.17 cub. yds. 

4.67 cub. yds. 5.66 cub. yds. 5.04 cub. yds. 

5.33 cub. yds. 4.94 cub. yds. 5.02 cub. yds. 

Average, 5.108 cub. yds. 


5.20 cub. yds. 
4.79 cub. yds. 
4.76 cub. yds. 


Cars. 


Measured by Tilton. (Memorandum book.) 

4.24 cub. yds. 4.14 cub. yds. 3.89 cub. yds. 4.58 cub. yds. 

Average, 4.21 cub. yds. 


Memorandum in his book counts car loads of stone, put in Section 
2 April 5 to 12, 482 at 4.21 cubic yards per load. Also, wagon loads 
at 1.76 cubic yards per load. 






51 


APPENDIX C. 


Amounts of Overwork and Changes from Estimated Plans. 


SEA-WALL AND EMBANKMENT. 

Quantities saved or made necessary by changes in plan and cross section. 

Stone Wall. 

Section A—Change in cross section end wall; additional amount made neces¬ 
sary; estimated to hard bottom plane. (Uhlig.)_ 6,180 cub. yds. 

Change in plan; shortening front line and wall; amount cut out from wall as- 


estimated. (Uhlig.)- 1,696 cub. yds. 

Difference between the above_ 4,484 cub. yds. 


(according to our estimates) sank, which amount we use as a reduction in 

correcting the result in this section for comparison with the estimates, etc. 4,120 cub. yds. 

Extra stone found on face of section_ 7,350 cub. yds. 

Extra stone made necessary by change in cross section of the wall. (Bishop)__ 1,040 cub. yds. 

Total amount of correction for extra stone work in this section_12,510 cub. yds. 

Section 4.— End Wall, twenty feet wide on top, slopes one on one; amount of 
stone delivered, vehicle measurement, after making due allowance for 
amount due for the pitching paid for as earth. (Holmes.)- 10,380 cub. yds. 

Deducting 20 per cent, from above to reduce to measurement in the wall- 8,304 cub. yds. 

Cross Section change. (Bishop.)__ 1,851 cub. yds. 

Overwork on face_ 6,500 cub. yds. 

Total correction_ 16,655 cub, yds. 

Section 3.— Cross Section change. (Bishop.)- 1,000 cub. yds. 

Overwork on face_ 8,326 cub. yds. 

Total correction- 9,326 cub, yd s. 


Earth Work. 

Section A.—Plan of work; additional earth made necessary by the change in. 

(Uhlig.)_ 807 cub. yds. 

Cross Section. —Saving in earth made by change in. (Bishop.)- 2,695 cub. yds. 

The difference between the above, used as a plus quantity in correcting result 

for comparison_ 1,888 cub, yds. 

Section 3.— Trench Filling (car measurement)- 60,000 cub. yds. 


The above amount reduced to measurement in the wall -- 48,000 cub. yds. 

Cross Section. —Saving in earth made by change in. (Bishop)--—-- 2,037 cub. yds. 

The difference between the above amounts, used as a minus quantity in coi- — 

recting the result in this section- 45.963 cub, yds. 

Section 4 .—End Wall. Amount of earth saved by introduction of a stone end 

wall (bank measure)--- CU ^‘^ ( l 8 ' 

Cross Section. —Amount of earth saved by change m cross section. (Bishop).. 4,812 cub. yds. 

Sum of the above amounts used as a plus quantity in correcting lesult in t his 

section--- 13,116 cub, yds. 
















































LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 020 537 476 0 





